Cyril Brumble v Tanya Maharaj-Leopold

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Mohammed, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 283
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2021-02391

Cyril Brumble

and

Tanya Maharaj-Leopold

Mohammed, J.

Suit No.: CV2021-02391

High Court

Appearances:

Mr Glen Bhagwansingh, instructed by Ms Ria L. Christian-Bhola, Attorneys at Law for the Claimant.

Mr Lemuel Murphy, instructed by Ms F. Nurallah, Attorneys at Law for the Defendant.

INTRODUCTION

Mohammed, J.

1 The Claimant is the Defendant's uncle, and the instant action concerns the front house (“the house”) situated on the property at LP 42 Lady Young Road, Morvant (“the property”). The Claimant has brought this action seeking vacant possession of the house; damages for wrongful occupation, trespass, loss of profit and loss of use of the house; the sum of $69,500.00 inclusive and continuing as rental payments; damages for breach of contract; an order restraining the Defendant her servants and or agents from destroying or causing damages to the house; costs; interest and such further and or other relief as the Court deems fit.

THE CLAIMANT'S CASE

2 The Claimant asserted that since 2004, he has been leasing the house. In or around November 2018, the Claimant had an oral agreement (‘the 2018 agreement”) with his sister, the Defendant's mother, Joan Brumble (“Joan”), where he agreed to sell the house to Joan on a rent-to-own basis. Joan paid the monthly rental for October 2018 to January 2019, and she passed away on 7 February 2019.

3 In or around June 2019, the Claimant entered into an oral agreement (“the 2019 oral agreement”) with the Defendant where he agreed to sell the house on a “rent to own” basis for the sum of $3,500.00 per month. The total purchase price was $84,000.00, and it was a similar “rent-to-own” 2018 agreement.

4 The Defendant commenced rental payments in July 2019 but failed to continue payments for several months. The Claimant deferred some of the monthly payments as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 6 August 2020, the Claimant and his son confronted the Defendant about outstanding rental payments and the need to vacate due to the non-payments. The Defendant admitted to owing the sum of $24,000.00 to the Claimant but refused to leave as she spent her money on the house and wanted credit for same.

5 By letter dated 1 September 2020, the Claimant caused his Attorney at law to issue a letter giving the Defendant two months' notice to deliver possession of the house to him. The Defendant refused to leave and caused her Attorney at Law to respond by letter dated 15 October 2020. The Claimant's Attorney at Law also responded.

6 The Claimant asserted that in October 2020, he became aware of works which the Defendant had commenced on the house. He caused his Attorney at law to write to the Defendant, calling upon her to vacate. The Defendant informed the Claimant's son that she had suspended the monthly rental payment as she had to repair the roof on 27 June 2021, as inclement weather caused the roof to be blown off. The Claimant asserted that the National Commission for Self Help (“the NSHC”) provided materials for the roof repairs.

7 The Claimant contended that he did not give his consent to the Defendant to carry out any work on the house and that Joan always communicated with him for consent before she conducted any repairs. The Claimant requested receipts from the Defendant for the repairs completed on the house, but none were provided. The Defendant only sent him some pictures of the work which were done.

8 The Claimant alleged that he was deprived of the benefit of the house since on or around January 2020, due to the Defendant's failure or refusal to vacate same. The Claimant also stated that there was a binding agreement between himself and the Defendant, and she failed to uphold her obligation of paying the monthly rent despite his generosity in exonerating and deferring the same.

THE DEFENDANT'S CASE

9 The Defendant admitted that she failed to pay the monthly rent on several occasions. The Defendant asserted that the Claimant promised on various occasions that he would formalise the 2019 oral agreement into a written agreement. The Defendant's case was that by the 2019 oral agreement, the Claimant agreed with the Defendant that after she paid the rent for the period July 2018 to July 2020, she would formally own the house.

10 The Defendant also asserted that the Claimant was aware that she moved in to live with Joan in May 2018 and that she was living in the house after Joan's death during the period February 2019 to May 2019. The Defendant pleaded that she often assisted Joan in paying the monthly rent of $4,000.00, along with the repairs for the house. The Defendant communicated with the Claimant via telephone calls and WhatsApp messages. The Claimant often asked the Defendant for pictures of certain areas of the house, which was in a dilapidated state due to its age and the Claimant's refusal to renovate and repair same. The Defendant often used her money to carry out repairs, and she sent before and after pictures of the areas which were repaired to the Claimant.

11 The repairs which the Defendant listed included: demolition and repairs to the sewer system; reconstruction of the yard; implementation of functioning water lines as there was previously no access to running water; bathroom installation and construction including toilet remodelling and faucet installation; extensive electrical work; and work on the kitchen area including the installation of windows, countertop repairs, sink and faucet installation. The Defendant pleaded that the value of the repairs was approximately $150,000.00.

12 The Defendant asserted that on or around 19 May 2019, the Claimant contacted her via a text in which he indicated that the house was no longer for sale as agreed under the 2018 agreement. He stated that he preferred to rent the property. The Defendant requested that the Claimant reimburse her for the money she spent on renovations for 13 months. On 22 May 2019, the Claimant contacted the Defendant, where he acknowledged the works done by the Defendant; indicated that he wanted to revise the amount to be paid as monthly rent from $4,000.00 to $3,500.00, with the balance of $80,000.00 owed on the purchase price. The Claimant amended the 2018 agreement to state that the monthly rent was to be paid from the period July 2019 to July 2021. The Defendant accepted the 2019 agreement and requested the necessary documentation to formalise it in writing, to which the Claimant promised to send.

13 The Defendant commenced payment from July 2019 to December 2019, save and except November 2019. The Defendant informed the Claimant about her financial difficulties, and in February 2020, she informed the Claimant that she would approach First Citizens Bank (“FCB”) for a loan to pay off the rent owed in a lump sum payment. The Defendant approached FCB, where she was informed she needed an agreement for sale in order to obtain the loan. The Defendant's financial situation was further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendant allowed the Claimant to defer payment of rent for the months of April, May and June 2020.

14 The Defendant asserted that she did not do any work on the house in October 2020. However, in December 2020, the Defendant nailed down the roof, which was blown off on 27 June 2020, and she did repairs on the flooring. The Defendant accepted that she had made a claim to the NCSH after the roof was blown off on 27 June 2020. The materials were delivered on or around 4 August 2020, at which time the Claimant had informed the Defendant that the house was no longer for sale and that all previous agreements were terminated. The Defendant gave the materials to a neighbour near the property.

15 The Defendant admitted that the 2019 oral agreement was binding and that she failed to pay rent for November 2019 and January to August 2020. The Defendant has not vacated the house as she has acquired an equitable interest in it based on the money she spent on numerous repairs to make the house habitable. The Defendant contended that she conducted the repairs based on the 2019 oral agreement that she would have been the owner by July 2021. The Defendant asserted that she has an equitable interest in the house due to the monies spent on repairs and renovations. Alternatively, the Defendant asserted that the Claimant has been unjustly enriched by the repairs to the house.

16 The Defendant counterclaimed for the following orders: (a) a declaration that she is entitled to exclusive possession and occupation of the house; (b) an injunction restraining the Claimants, their servants and/or agents from entering upon and/or trespassing and/or remaining in the house; (c) alternatively, a declaration that she is entitled to a lien on the house for such sum as the Court may deem fit, together with interest, costs and damages.; (d) and any further or other relief as the Court may think fit in the circumstances.

THE ISSUES

17 Based on the respective pleaded cases, the issues to be determined are:

• (a) Whether the Defendant has acquired an equitable interest in the house.

• (b) If not, whether the Claimant has been unjustly enriched by the Defendant's actions.

• (c) Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages for trespass, loss of profit, mesne profits or loss of use.

WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAS ACQUIRED AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE HOUSE

18 The Defendant has grounded her claim in proprietary estoppel. The elements of proprietary estoppel were repeated by Mendonca, J.A. in Nester Patricia Ralph and Esau Ralph v. Malyn Bernard Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2011 at paragraph 38 where he referred to the dicta in Thorner v. Major and Ors [2009] U.K.H.L. 18 where Lord Walker pointed out that “while there is no universal definition of proprietary estoppel, which is both comprehensive and uncontroversial, that most scholars agree that the principle of proprietary estoppel is based on “three elements, although they express them in slightly...