Ponde v Chief of Police

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Judge: Robotham, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 05 May 1970
• Neutral Citation: MS 1970 CA 2
• Docket Number: Crim. Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1970
• Date: 05 May 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Cecil Lewis, J.A.; St. Bernard, J.A. (Ag.)

Crim. Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1970

Ponde

and

Chief of Police

K. Allen for the Appellant

J.S. Weekes for the Respondent

Criminal law - Traffic offence — Appeal against conviction for traffic offences — Having regard to the circumstances, the vehicle was being driven badly — Magistrate correct in her decision – Appeal dismissed.

Robotham, C.J.

1 The Plaintiff herein claimed the sum of $720 for damages for trespass and/or nuisance against the defendant for placing or allowing an electric pole to remain on his land thereby depriving him of its use and enjoyment. Alternatively, the sum of $720 for breech of an agreement by the defendant whereby it was agreed that they would remove the pole so that the Plaintiff could commence construction of his house. The Plaintiff says that relying o the said agreement he acted to his detriment in purchasing 50 bags of cement. This cement he complained was spoilt chasing 50 bags of cement. This cement he complained was spoilt because of the negligent way in which the work was undertaken and the undue delay that took place before it was eventually completed.

2 The claim for trespass and nuisance was not pursued at the trial and on the hearing of this appeal, counsel for the respondent very rightly conceded that the questions which had to be decided were –

• (1) Was the undertaking of Hilton Howson the general manager of the appellant company, to remove the pole “soon” an enforceable one in law and

• (2) Did the Company act negligent and unreasonable in carrying out the undertaking assuming that the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative.

3 This pole was planted on the Plaintiff's land by the Appellant's predecessors and was done by authority of law. An undertaking was then given to have the pole removed as soon as the Plaintiff was ready to build on the land.

4 In March, 1983 the Plaintiff requested Mr. Howson General Manager of the Defendant Company to have the pole removed and was told that he would have to pay $15,000 to accomplish this. On the intervention of the Chief Minister, the Company agreed to remove the pole by relocating the line and the pole.

5 On August 5, 1983 the Plaintiff saw Howson who told him that the pole would be removed “soon”. No specific date was given but the work was commenced the following week. It is solely on the basis of this undertaking by Howson that the Plaintiff's action is based.

6 So soon as the work was commenced, the plaintiff asked the line supervisor Fagan when the work would be finished, and he was told “the following Sunday”.

7 On August 11, 1983 the Plaintiff went and purchased 600 concrete blocks and 50 bags of cement. No steps towards starting construction had yet...