republic of trinidad and tobagowebopac.ttlawcourts.org/libraryjud/judgments/hc/pemberton/2012… ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 16
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO: CV2012-01634
BETWEEN
ANNA ZORINA MOHAMMED
CLAIMANT
And
NASIF RAMPERSAD
FIRST DEFENDANT
SALINA REHANNA MOHAMMED
SECOND DEFENDANT
Before the Honourable Madame Justice C. Pemberton Appearances:
For the Claimant: Mr. G. Raphael
For the Defendants: Mr. A. Manwah
JUDGMENT
[1] BACKGROUND
The matter at bar is a “family affair” concerning a property dispute. The
following genealogical illustration depicts the relevant parties in this
conundrum.
Page 2 of 16
FFAAMMIILLYY TTRREEEE
[2] UNDISPUTED FACTS
The undisputed facts in the matter at bar are as follows:
Mrs. Margaret Pariage Rampersad was the holder of a
tenancy for a disputed parcel of land situate in Barataria,
Trinidad, from Aranjuez Estates Limited (In Voluntary
Liquidation)1.
On June 3rd 1975 Mrs. Pariage Rampersad transferred this
tenancy to her son Mr. Hilton G. Rampersad.
1 All and Singular that certain piece or parcel of land situate at No. 69 Eastern Main Road, Barataria, San Juan, in the
ward of St. Anns, in the Island of Trinidad comprising FIVE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN POINT TWO SQUARE METERS or Five Thousand Five Hundred and Three Superficial Feet be the same more or less and bounded on the North by the Eastern Main Road, Barataria on the South intersected by a drain 2.0 meters wide and by Lot No. 10 in a circle on the East by Lot No. 67 in a circle and on the West partly by Lot No. 71 in a circle and by a Drain 2.0 meters wide.
Margaret Pariage Rampersad
(d. 08-13-1975)
Violet Mohammed ---- Shaffic Mohammed
(d.11-03-2004) (d. 04-05-1961) Hilton G Rampersad
(d. 12-16-1992)
Anna Zorina
Mohammed
Lincoln Rampersad --- Nasame Rampersad
(d. 08-14-2004)
Nasif Rampersad --- Salina R Mohammed
Page 3 of 16
On August 13th 1975 Mrs. Pariage Rampersad passed away.
During Mrs. Pariage Rampersad’s lifetime Violet and Shaffic
Mohammed lived on this parcel of land.
After Mrs. Pariage Rampersad’s death Violet and Shaffic
continued to live on the parcel of land until their death.
AZM is the daughter of Violet and Shaffic Mohammed.
AZM lived on the parcel of land with her parents until her
marriage in 1972.
After AZM’s marriage ended in 1976, she returned to live
with her parents at the premises with her children.
The above rendition of events is AZM’s lineage to the parcel
of land.
The Defendants, Mr. Nasif Rampersad (NR) and Mrs. Salina Rehanna
Mohammed (SRM), are entitled to statutory lease from the Aranjuez
Estates Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation).
[3] DISPUTED FACT AND ISSUE
The disputed fact and parallel issue is when did time begin to run
against the Defendants so as to extinguish their paper title?
[4] PLEADINGS
CLAIMANT’S CASE
The Claimant, AZM, is claiming ownership and possession of the disputed
parcel of land. AZM was born and raised on the property which was
originally tenanted to her grandmother Ms. Pariage Rampersad of
Aranjuez Estates Limited. During 1972 and 1976 AZM did not reside on
the property. On September 10th 19742 Ms. Pariage Rampersad
transferred the tenancy to the First Defendant’s grandfather, Mr. Hilton
George Rampersad.
2 This date was incorrectly pleaded as June 3
rd, 1975 in the Statement of Case.
Page 4 of 16
[5] On September 14th 2011 AZM penned a letter to NR and SRM, claiming a
“possessory title” of the parcel and offering to pay them “a nominal sum for
their interest”. NR and SRM responded by letter dated November 29th
2011 denying AZM’s claim to adverse possession of the land. AZM’s case
is grounded in the provisions of the REAL PROPERTY LIMITATION
ACT3.
[6] DEFENDANT’S DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
NR and SRM state that AZM’s claim does not disclose a cause of action
against them and state that they are the owners of the disputed parcel by
virtue of Deed dated January 31st 2011 and registered as No.
DE20110365179D001. Additionally NR and SRM claim that AZM resided
on the property with permission granted under an oral family arrangement.
[7] After the exchange of letters between AZM and NR and SRM in which
AZM claimed a possessory title of the parcel of land, NR and SRM served
AZM with a “Notice to Quit” effectively terminating her licence on July 30th
20124. AZM has since refused to vacate the property and as such NR and
SRM have counterclaimed inter alia for possession of the said parcel of
land and for damages for the use and occupation of the subject premises.
[8] CLAIMANT’S REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM
AZM denied NR and SRM’s claim that she resided on the parcel of land
under a family arrangement and put them to strict proof such
arrangement. AZM maintained that “since1975 Violet Mohammed, Shaffic
Mohammed and herself have been in sole exclusive and undisturbed
possession of the said parcel of land”5 and deny that NR and SRM are
entitled possession of the property. She however admitted that she
received the “Notice to Quit” terminating her licence to occupy the said
3 Laws of Trinidad and Tobago. Chap. 53:03.
4 See Exhibit 16 in Trial Bundle of Documents.
5 Reply and Defence to Counterclaim. Para. 3. Filed Jul. 16 2012.
Page 5 of 16
land and confirmed that she has refused to leave/vacate the premises.
She denied that NR and SRM were entitled to the reliefs claimed on the
Counterclaim.
[9] EVIDENCE
Neither party’s evidence strayed from their pleaded cases. The parties
only joined issue with this point, whether there was in existence a family
arrangement which allowed AZM and her parents to reside on the
premises. I shall address the evidence as I analyse Counsel’s
submissions.
[10] SUBMISSIONS
As I said, I have chosen to examine Counsel’s helpful submissions on this
matter.
CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSIONS
Counsel submitted that after the transfer of the tenancy to Mr. Hilton
George Rampersad on September 10th 1974, Mrs. Pariage Rampersad
continued to reside on the property. She was no longer entitled to
possession and Counsel invited the Court to draw the inference of a
licence in her favour. On the date of her death on August 13th 1975, Mrs.
Pariage Rampersad’s license to reside on the property ended. AZM’s
parents, Violet and Shaffic, resided with Mrs. Pariage Rampersad at the
time of her death when the permission granted to her to continue to reside
on the property would have ended. Consequently, Violet and Shaffic
would have been in adverse possession of the property from the date of
Mrs. Pariage Rampersad’s death. AZM submitted that “to successfully
challenge the Claimant’s claim to a possessory title the Defendants would
have to establish … that the Claimant has lived on the land with
Page 6 of 16
permission under a family arrangement.6” NR and SRM have been unable
to produce any evidence to support the allegation of a family arrangement.
[11] The evidence contained in NR’s witness statement dated September 27th
2013 and his supplemental witness statement dated December 13th 2013
is hearsay and should be disregarded by the Court “since the maker of the
statement is dead the age of the witness now giving the statement and
further the evidence is clearly self-serving”7. Contradicting statements
exist between the letter dated November 29th 2011 which claims that Mrs.
Margaret Mohammed, the first Defendant’s great grandmother, gave AZM
permission to reside on the property, and the pleadings which allege that
permission to stay on the property was granted by both Hilton and Lincoln
Rampersad, The evidence that a family arrangement for AZM to reside on
the property does not exist.
[12] The case of EDWARDS v. BRATHWAITE8 relied on by NR and SRM was
distinguished by AZM by the fact that there was a “clear admission [by the
claimant in that case] that he was in occupation with permission9”. There
is no evidence in this matter that AZM or her mother was residing on the
premises under permission granted to them by either Hilton or Lincoln
Rampersad.
[13] In CHUN KEUNG v. KUNG KWORKWAI DAVID AND AONTHER, Lord
Hoffman states that, “the Limitation Ordinance is not concerned with
whether the defendant has acquired a title but with whether the plaintiff’s
right of action as been barred” not with the rights of successors of the
6 Written Submissions of the Claimant. Para. 7. Filed Mar. 21 2014.
7 Id. at para. 14.
8 32 W.I.R. pg. 85.
9 Claimant’s Submissions. Para. 18.
Page 7 of 16
defendants.10 Counsel quoted extensively from the judgment, his main
point being:
“It follows therefore that the Defendants and their
predecessors–in-title not having been in possession of the
said property after the assignment to Hilton Rampersad on
the 10th September 1974 or for the latest at the death of
Margaret Pariage on the 13th August 1975 the Defendants’
right of action would have been barred sixteen (16) years
from either date and the rights inter se of Violet and the
Claimant, successive persons who have been in possession
adversely to the Defendants since they discontinued their
possession are for this purpose irrelevant.”11 (emphasis
mine).
[14] Under the LAND TENANTS (SECURITY OF TENURE) ACT12 NR and
SRM’s option to purchase is an existing right which was created on
January 31st 2011. Consequently, if it is found that AZM is in adverse
possession of the property then NR and SRM would be barred from
asserting their rights to purchase the property.
[15] DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS
NR and SRM submitted that in order for AZM to succeed in extinguishing
their title she must meet the requirements of Sections 3, 4 and 22 of the
REAL PROPERTY LIMITATION ACT13. These sections require AZM to
have been in “physical custody and control for 16 years without consent or
permission. There is also the requirement that there is an “intention to
10
[1997] 1 WIR 1232 at pg. 1236. Id. at para. 21. 11
Id. at para. 22. 12
Laws of Trinidad and Tobago. Chap. 59:54. Sec. 5(5). 13
Defendants’ Submissions. Para. 2. Filed on Feb. 21 2014.
Page 8 of 16
exercise such custody and control on her own behalf and for her own
benefit”14.
[16] From AZM’s own evidence it is undisputed that she did not have exclusive
possession of the property until 2004 after the death of her mother. Prior
to mother’s death AZM had always shared residence with someone else
on the property who had permission to live there from the title holder.
Consequently, AZM’s occupation does not meet the 16 year limitation
period. AZM also did not present any evidence which would have
demonstrated her intention to possess the property adversely to the rights
of NR and SRM. In fact, on cross examination, AZM admitted that she
received permission from her mother to return to live at premises in 1976
and this permission continued up until the death of her mother in 2004.
[17] NR and SRM’s evidence is that AZM’s predecessors have always resided
on the property with the permission of the title holders and under a family
arrangement; effectively, her predecessors were licensees.
[18] LAW AND ANALYSIS
The general rule “he who asserts must prove” is expanded by the authors
of Phipson on Evidence to state, “he who invokes the aid of the law
should be the first to prove his case...the burden of proof is fixed at the
beginning of the trial by the state of the pleadings, and it is settled as a
question of law, remaining unchanged throughout the trial exactly where
the pleadings place it, and never shifting.”15
[19] This principle, the corner stone of the law of evidence, is at the heart of
the matter at bar; an apparently simple but most interesting case of
adverse possession. Contrary to AZM’s submission that the burden of
14
Id. 15
Malek, Hodge M. Chap. 6-06. 17th
Ed. Pg. 151.
Page 9 of 16
proof rests on NR and SRM to prove that a family arrangement existed,
the legal burden in this matter, in fact lies squarely on her shoulders to
prove that which she first asserted; that she holds the property adversely
to the rights of NR and SRM. AZM must bring therefore evidence that her
right as an adverse possessor of the property has accrued by
demonstrating first, that her entry into the property was adverse as against
the paper title holders NR and SRM or their predecessors in title; second,
that she had the requisite animus or intention to dispossess the paper title
holders; third, that she has exercised her rights for the duration of the
statutory limitation period; that as a consequence the paper title holder’s
rights and the title are extinuguished.
[20] Adverse possession actions are grounded squarely in the REAL
PROPERTY LIMITATION ACT16. Thus AZM must satisfy Sections 3 and
4 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act speaks to the statutory limitation period
of 16 years which must be met before a claim for adverse possession can
be successfully made17. It is telling that AZM did not plead any date on
which she advances that time began to run against NR and SRM.
Instead, AZM claims that her parents’ possession was adverse to that of
the paper title owners upon the death of her grandmother in 1975. She
has provided no pleading that any action had been taken by those paper
title holders to end the arrangement with Margaret’s family upon her
death. In other words, where is the act actively evidencing the
commencement of the adverse possession period? If there is no date
speaking to when the entry became adverse the case has no basis upon
which to stand.
[21] Further, AZM has not provided any evidence that her parents possessed
the requisite animus. I wonder if this was to avoid the snare of “self-
16
Chap 56:03. 17
Id.
Page 10 of 16
serving evidence” as she claimed in relation to NR and SRM’s assertion of
a family arrangement? Additionally, in relation to the standard of proof
expected, suffice it to say that in cases in which a case of adverse
possession is being advanced Jourdan states that “a high standard of
proof is required from a squatter who takes possession without the true
owner’s consent.”18 Jourdan referred to the case of POWELL v. MC
FARLANE per Slade J.,
“the Courts will in my judgment, require clear and affirmative
evidence that the trespasser, claiming that he has acquired
possession, not only had the requisite intention to possess,
but made such intention clear to the world. If his acts are
open to more than one interpretation and he has not made it
perfectly clear to the world at large by his actions or words
that he has intended to exclude the owner as best he can,
the Courts will treat him as not having the requisite animus
possidendi and consequently as not having dispossessed
the owner.”19
[22] Jourdan gives guidance as to the manner in which Licences and
Tenancies at Will should be treated20. I associate myself with that
learning. Although a licence may not be implied simply by the fact that the
squatter may be using the land in a manner which may be inconsistent
with the “true owner’s present or future enjoyment of the land”, there are
circumstances under which a licence for occupation and use of land may
be implied. Jourdan continued, “however, that does not prevent a finding
to the effect that a person’s occupation of any land is by implied
permission of the person entitled to the land in any case where such a
18
Jourdan Q.C., Stephen and Oliver Radley-Gardner. “Adverse Possession”. Chap. 9-103. Pg. 221. 2nd
Ed. 19
Id. 20
Id.
Page 11 of 16
finding is justified on the actual facts of the case.”21 AZM’s parents were
allowed by Mrs. Pariage Rampersad to occupy the premises. The
property was transferred by Mrs. Pariage Rampersad to her son who in
turn permitted his sister, her husband and children to live on the land rent
free for a significant period of time. Additionally, the property is close in
proximity to the residence of the current paper title holders, another
property which was also transferred by Mrs. Pariage Rampersad to her
son Hilton George Rampersad, and was constantly being “dealt with” by
the paper title holders so that it clearly did not fall in abeyance. The
current paper title holders were conscious of the fact that AZM lived on the
property with permission granted to her by his predecessors.
[23] In fact, not only did AZM reside on the property under an implied license,
but so did her parents Violet and Shaffic. Mrs. Pariage Rampersad
granted a general licence to Voilet and Shaffic to live on the property with
her in 1943. That situation remained until her death in 1975, sometime
after she transferred the tenancy to her son, Hilton George Rampersad.
There was no evidence adduced by AZM to assert that by Violet’s
continued possession was adverse to Hilton’s paper title. I can draw the
inference that Violet’s brother, Hilton permitted his sister Violet and her
husband Shaffic to continue in1976 to stay on the property under an
implied licence. Shaffic died in 1961.
[24] While under this licence, Violet granted AZM a sub-license and upon
Voilet’s death on November 3rd 2004 and the simultaneous revocation of
AZM’s sub-licence due to Violet’s death, AZM was permitted to reside on
the property under an implied licence. Hilton George Rampersad died in
1992. There is again no evidence adduced by AZM that Lincoln’s son
objected to the continued use and occupation by his aunt. That remained
so until Lincoln’s death in August 2004. In fact, I draw the inference again
21
Id. At Chap. 35-15.
Page 12 of 16
that Violet’s continued occupation was permissive. His heirs allowed
Violet to remain there without any “fuss” until her death some months after
his, in November 2004. AZM continued there until 2011 when she wrote
to NR and SRM claiming a possessory title. That letter in itself was
evidence of the start of any period of adverse relations among the parties.
[25] Further there is no pleading that Mrs. Pariage Rampersad revoked her
licence from Violet and Shaffic during her lifetime, nor is there a pleading
that Voilet and Shaffic revoked the sub-licence granted to AZM in 1976.
Either of these actions would have acted as a catalyst for the time for
adverse possession to begin running against the paper title holder.
However, the evidence simply does not indicate that AZM’s parents, Violet
and Shaffic, intended to dispossess the paper title holders.
[26] An illustration of the relationship of the parties to the property is attached
as “A” to this Judgment.
[27] INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS
AZM asserted that there was no family arrangement. If there was none,
then there had to have been evidence of an intention to create legal
relations between and among the parties. Among family members, the
law does not infer an intention to create legal relations unless the contrary
is proved. Has AZM proved the contrary? There is no evidence that
either AZM or Violet and Shaffic had a landlord/tenant relationship with NR
and SRM or any of their predecessors in title. There was never an
attempt to collect rent or to enforce any written agreement for tenancy. As
such I draw the inescapable inference that there was no intention to create
legal relations between the parties. AZM was a licensee of the property
and authorised possession of a property can never be said to be adverse
to the rights of the true title holder. Jourdan referred to Sir Raymond
Evershed MR’s who stated that “a possession may fail to be adverse by
Page 13 of 16
reason of the rule that ‘possession is never adverse if it can be referred to
a lawful title’22. The Privy Council has also upheld this point in law and I
adopt the sentiments of Lord Walker in stating,
“a person who is in occupation of land as a licensee cannot
begin to obtain a title by adverse possession so long as his
licence has not been revoked. Unless and until it is revoked
his occupation of the land is to be ascribed to his licence and
not to an adverse claim.”23
The same may be said of AZM. The licence which allowed AZM to be in
possession of the property cannot be used to ground a claim in adverse
possession. The evidence reveals that NR’s predecessors permitted
AZM’s grandmother and mother to stay on the property due to the close
familial relationship. Consequently it follows that NR and SRM having
purchased the property in 2011 and knowing that AZM was staying on the
property without paying any type of rent, permitted her to continue to stay
on the property under a licence. I reiterate, there has been no evidence
put before the Court to show that AZM’s mother Violet intended to
possess the property adverse to the rights of anyone. On the contrary, the
inference from the pleadings is that she operated under a license granted
to her under a family arrangement and subsequently invited AZM to stay
at the premises under the same license.
[28] AZM’S LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 14TH 2011
On one part AZM claims a possessory title of the property; while on the
other hand, she offers to pay NR and SRM for their interest in the
property. This letter seems contradictory in its terms However it seems
22
Preston and Newsom’s Limitation of Actions. (2nd
edn) pg. 71 23
CLARKE V. SWABY [2007] 2 P & CR 2 at para. 11.
Page 14 of 16
that AZM formed and made known her intention to dispossess as of
September 14th 2011.
[29] To my mind AZM’s evidence therefore reveals that the earliest date at
which she could attempt to claim that the time for adverse possession
began to run against the interest of the paper title holders is September
14th 2011. Other dates in contention seem to be the effective date
contained in NR and SRM’s “Notice to Quit” which was served upon AZM
on May 7th 2012, after the filing of the action. It should be noted that time
stopped on June 29th 2012 when NR and SRM filed their Counterclaim.
Though AZM did not plead the fact that she was served with a “Notice to
Quit”, she conceded the existence of the Notice in her Reply and Defence
to Counterclaim and subsequently attached it to her Witness Statement.
In any event, whichever date is taken, it is clear that the 16 year statutory
limitation period requirement for claims rooted in adverse possession has
not been met. Consequently, this claim cannot qualify as a viable claim in
adverse possession.
[30] COUNTERCLAIM
The claim for damages for use and occupation filed by the Defendants
was not supported in the pleadings. Neither evidence nor submissions
was received. I therefore make no comment on that relief.
[31] CONCLUSION:
This claim fails on the ground that AZM and her parents, Violet and Shaffic
resided on the property under a licence granted to them by the paper title
holders. It follows that the time only started to run against the rights of the
paper title holder when AZM form the clear animus to dispossess – the
letter of September 14, 2011 at best. This does not satisfy the 16 year
time period required by the Act.
Page 15 of 16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Claimant’s Statement of Case filed on April 23, 2012 be and is hereby denied.
2. That the Claimant do pay the Defendant’s costs prescribed in
the sum of $14,000.00. 3. That there be judgment for the Defendants on paragraphs 1
and 3 of the Counterclaim filed on June 29, 2012. 4. That the Claimant do vacate the said premises within 90 days
of the date of this Order. 5. That the Claimant do pay the Defendants’ costs on the
Counterclaim in the sum of $14,000.00.
Dated this 17th day of June 2014.
/s/ CHARMAINE PEMBERTON HIGH COURT JUDGE
Page 16 of 16
“A”
TTIITTLLEE TTRREEEE
09-10-1974
Transferred Tenancy
Licence Transferred through
1943 - 1975 Estate After Death
1975 Implied Licence
1992 Implied Licence
Sub licence 2009
1976 – 2004 2004 Implied Licence Grant of
Letters of Administration
2004 Implied Licence
2011
01.31.2011 Implied Licence Tenancy Assigned
Until letter of 09.14.2011 And
evincing intention to possess. Freehold Reversion
NOTICE TO QUIT: MAY 2012 Purchased
Aranjuez Estates Limited
Margaret Pariage Rampersad
(Statutory Tenant)
d. 08-13-1975
Hilton George Rampersad
(statutory tenant)
d. 12-16-1992
Lincoln Rampersad
(statutory tenant)
d. 08-14-2004
Nasame Rampersad
(statutory tenant)
Nasif Rampersad & Salina R.
Mohammed
(statutory tenant)
Violet and Shaffic
d. 11-03-2004 d. 04-05-1961
Mohammed
Anna Zorina
Mohammed
2004 – 09-14-2011
Anna Zorina Mohammed
in
adverse possession
09-14-2011 – 06-29-2012