Rodney v Meade

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Redhead, J.
• Judgment Date: 27 April 1992
• Neutral Citation: MS 1992 HC 6
• Docket Number: 137 of 1988
• Date: 27 April 1992

High Court

Redhead, J.

137 of 1988

Rodney

and

Meade

Tort - Trespass to land — Plaintiff suing defendant in trespass claiming that defendant entered on her land and destroyed crops which was growing there — Defendant admitted entering on the said land, but denied trespass — Land in dispute — Adjudicator decided the issue in favour of plaintiff — Partition of land was lawful — Plaintiff did not know of the partition — Not a trespasser and entitled to the benefit of her crops — Defendant not entitled to enter and destroy them — Plaintiff entitled to damages.

Redhead, J.

1 The plaintiff is 83 years old. She owns and occupies land at Harris by inheritance. Her husband owned the land at first. He died in July, 1986. Letters of Administration were taken out by the plaintiff's Solicitor and the husband's land devolved to the plaintiff.

2 In this action., the plaintiff is suing the defendant in trespass. She alleges that the defendant entered upon her land on 30th June, 1988 and tore down her fence. She also alleges that the defendant entered upon her land on 23rd July. 1988 and again on 1st October, 1988 and destroyed her crops which were growing on the land.

3 The defendant by paragraph 1 in her defence admits that she entered upon the land in question and “removed crops unlawfully planted thereon with the authority of …Margaret-Ann Greenaway, the freeholder thereof.”

4 By paragraph 2, the defendant denies that she has committed any acts of trespass upon lands belonging to the plaintiff. The facts as I find them are that the question was in dispute. As a result of this dispute, the plaintiff's husband appeared before the land adjudicator on 1st December, 1980. The decision by the adjudicator was given on the same day.

5 For completeness I think I should quote in full the decision of the adjudicator which is in the following terms:

“This dispute concerns the ownership of part of a parcel of land at Harris Village. John Rodney claims that the land previously belonged [to] three sisters Mary Greenaway, Anne Bramble and Molly Bradley, his mother. Acme Bramble died intestate and without issue. Mr. Rodney claims that the land passed as undivided shares to John Greenaway and himself as the surviving decendants of Mary Greenaway and Molly Bradley respectively. He said in evidence that when John Greenaway died, as he did in 1971, that his claim was ‘cut out because his wife has no children for him.’

The claims of the estate is based upon a ‘Will’ a copy of which has been tendered in evidence. This document does not comply with Section 7 of the Wills Act Cap. 84 in that it is not signed by two witnesses in the presence of the testator and each other and so the claim of the Estate must fail. This being so I need not consider the submissions made in respect of the contents of the document.

As learned counsel pointed out, his client John Rodney is in error when he said that John Greenaway claimed failed (sic) for lack of issue. I find that the land belonged to Mary Greenaway and Molly Rodney and that the two defendants who now own the land are the claimants and that they held it in equal shares. My decision is that the land is owned by Margaret-Ann Elizabeth Greenaway as Administrator of the Estate of John Theophilus Greenaway deceased, and John Rodney as owners in common in equal shares Title in Absolute.

D.W. Greenwood.”

6 The first observation I wish to make is that I think it is most undesirable that a layman should be called upon to adjudicate on matters of this nature. I have said in the past and I reiterate that the Registrar of lands should be a person qualified in the law. In my view, Montserrat is the only island in the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States were the Land Registry is separate from duties of the Registrar of the High Court who is a qualified lawyer. I do not see why it should be.

7 This decision of the land adjudicator was never appeal against. So as far as this decision goes, it still stands However, on 23rd March, 1982 Rodney caused a notice of intention to be filed to appeal to the High Court out of time, against the decision of the Adjudicator. This was not proceeded with.

8 The decision of the Land Adjudicator was given on 1st September, 1980. One has ninety days in which to appeal that decision. After which any party wishing to appeal may apply to the court for extension of time in which to file appeal.

9 In 1987 the plaintiff's husband having died, the plaintiff'S solicitor, Mr. Brandt made application on her behalf for letters of Administration of one half (2) of the disputed property.

10 Mr. Allen, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that although the plaintiff's solicitor file a notice of intention to appeal in 1982 he must have realized by then that his intention to appeal must have been deemed as abandoned because it must be in an extreme case of miscarriage of justice for a court to grant an extension of time two years after a decision was given.

11 Learned counsel also submitted that intention that the solicitor treated the matter abandoned is borne out by the fact that he applied for only a half share in the property. According to learned counsel that clearly showed that he had no intention to pursue with his application to appeal.

12 Miss Henry, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once a notice of intention to appeal is lodged then it becomes mandatory on the Registrar of Lands to enter a restriction on the land. In support of the submission, Miss Henry referred to S 24(5) Land Adjudication Act which is in the following terms:–

“Any person…appealing under subsection (1) shall give notice to the Registrar of his intention to appeal and the Registrar shall enter a restriction under the provisions of the Registered Land Act 1978 in every register affected by the appeal.”

13 Learned counsel referred to Section 134 of the Registered Land...