Grace Stanneveld v Lemuel Nelson

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mr. Justice Devindra Rampersad
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2023
• Neutral Citation: TT 2023 HC 227
• Docket Number: Claim No. CV2019-00375
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

Between

Grace Stanneveld

Claimant

and

Lemuel Nelson

(Trading as “Jubilee Auto”)

Defendant

Before

The Honourable Mr. Justice Devindra Rampersad

Claim No. CV2019-00375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Claimant: Robert Boodoosingh

Defendant: Farai Hove Masaisai instructed by Antonya Pierre

Table of Contents

Background	4
Issues to be determined	6
The defendant's submissions	6
The claimant's submissions	7
The defendant's submissions in reply	8
Issues raised by the court at the 17 March 2023 hearing	9
The claimant's supplemental submissions	9
The defendant's supplemental submissions	10
Discussion	12
Lack of Title	12
The Option to Purchase and the Equity	18
The $170,000 spent on the subject lands	23
The Notice to Quit	24
Detinue and conversion	25
The order	26

1 By claim form and statement of case filed on 29 January 2019, the claimant filed a claim seeking the following reliefs:

• 1.1. Vacant possession of premises situate at No 203 Eastern Main Road, Tacarigua as described in the tenancy agreement between the claimant and defendant;

• 1.2. Payment of arrears of rent for the period September 2017 to December 2017 at a monthly rate of $5,000;

• 1.3. Payment of mesne profits from January 2019 and ongoing at the rate of $5,000 per month;

• 1.4. Interest at the statutory rate of 5% from September 2017 – until date of payment;

• 1.5. Costs;

• 1.6. Such further and or other relief as the Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2 The defendant filed its defence and counterclaim on 31 January 2020 claiming the following:

• 2.1. A declaration that the claimant, is not entitled to the subject property situate at No. 203 Eastern Main Road, Tacarigua;

• 2.2. A declaration that the defendant has an equitable interest in the subject property;

• 2.3. An order that the defendant has an equitable interest in the subject property;

• 2.4. An order preventing the claimant, her servants and or agent from removing the defendant from the subject property.

3 In the alternative to 2.4,

• 3.1. An order that the claimant do pay to the defendant the sum of $150,000 for works done on the subject property;

• 3.2. Damages for conversion/detinue;

• 3.3. Interest;

• 3.4. Costs;

• 3.5. Such further and or other relief that may be deemed just and expedient in the circumstances.

Background

4 The defendant alleged that in or around September 2011, he became aware of the property situate at 203 Eastern Main Road, Tacarigua along with another parcel of land (“the connected parcel”) connected to the said property while he was driving around the East West Corridor in search of a property to rent.

5 Upon coming across the two parcels of land, the defendant met a man by the name of Ricardo Garcia who informed him that he was the caretaker and that the landlady was Grace Stanneveld, the claimant, and that she was residing in Canada at the time.

6 The defendant then obtained the claimant's contact and called her that same night to inform her of his interest in opening a garage. The claimant indicated her willingness to rent the parcels of land since it was being used as a carpark at that time.

7 The defendant was then instructed to pay a deposit of $10,000 into the claimant's Republic Bank Account. But the next day, informed the defendant that another person had already made a deposit for the connected parcel.

8 The defendant received a phone call from the claimant in or around November 2011 enquiring whether he was still interested in renting the connected parcel and informed the defendant that she was in Trinidad at that time.

9 On 30 November 2011, the defendant received a copy of the keys for the connected parcel from the claimant and on 1 December 2011, the parties signed a tenancy agreement and the defendant paid a sum of $10,000.

10 In or around February 2013, the claimant offered the defendant an opportunity to rent the demised premises to which the defendant accepted the said offer. On 1 March 2013, the parties executed the tenancy agreement for the demised premises.

11 The defendant then proceeded to clear the area, levelling same and then paved it with concrete.

12 From 2011 to present, the defendant has since rebuilt and or constructed and or renovated both parcels of land and stated that he has incurred expenses in excess of $150,000.

13 The defendant has stated that he relied on a promise made to him by the claimant that upon the expiry of the period of three years less one day of the lease, the defendant would be entitled to purchase the demised premises and the connected parcel. The tenancy agreement expired on 29 February 2016.

14 In or around October 2017, Mr Elroy Weekes, who purported to be a bailiff acting on behalf of the claimant, visited the demised premises as the defendant did not pay his rent. Mr. Weekes then took one Mazda Familia Singapore Registration PBY 9214.

15 On 22 December 2017, Mr. Weekes then returned to the premises in the company of police officers. He informed the defendant that he was acting as an agent of the claimant and that the bailiff was Dennis Durity. Mr. Durity then took one blue Toyota Tercel Registration PBD 1829, a Mazda Demio Japan Registration PCA 6673 and an Izuzu Hiab Truck TCD 7226.

16 The defendant was informed via letter dated 1 August 2018 that Mr Rodney Charles was acting as the claimant's agent with regard to the premises. He then received another letter dated 13 August 2017 informing him to pay all arrears, failing which, the claimant would re-enter the premises.

17 The defendant commissioned a search on the premises and the connected parcel and obtained a copy of the Deed which shows that the two parcels of land are vested in Irene Dookhie and not the claimant.

Issues to be determined

18 Whether the claimant has locus standi to act for and on behalf of the estate of Irene Dookie;

19 Whether an agreement existed between the parties for the purchase of both parcels of land;

20 Alternatively, whether the claimant is liable in detinue and conversation to the defendant;

21 Whether the defendant has an equitable interest in the property;

22 Whether the defendant is entitled to damages.

The defendant's submissions

23 The defendant relied on Administration of Estates Act Chap 9:01, section 10(4) and Sections 10 and 11 of the Wills and Probate Act Chap 9:03, Ingall v Moran 1, Ramlogan Roopnarine Singh and others v Ralph Ramjohn and Sabita Ramnarine 2, Alexandrine Austin and others v Gene Hart 3 and stated that an Executor or Administrator derives his title only when given the grant of representation which then allows him to act on behalf of the estate of the deceased.

24 The defendant also submitted that the claimant admitted that she was not the owner of the subject property, neither does she disclose in her pleading any evidence of a will, death, certificate or a grant of probate giving her the authority to deal with the estate of Irene Dookhie who the claimant has purported to be deceased. Therefore, barring any evidence from the claimant to the contrary or late disclosure of the grant of probate, the claimant could not have lawfully offered the defendant the subject property by way of sale as the subject property was not legally hers to sell nor could she lawfully have commenced and maintained this claim.

25 As it relates to the agreement, the parties came to an oral agreement that the defendant would be entitled to purchase the parcels upon the expiration of the period of three years less one day. This was the reason that the defendant started developing the property and why the claimant never objected to the open development work being conducted by the defendant.

26 The defendant argued that the oral discussions and agreements between the parties were intended to be binding and that such a binding agreement exists. Further, the claimant has not given any evidence to refute the promises made to the defendant nor the substantial amount of retrofit works done to the property.

27 It was also argued that a claim in detinue can be made by a person with the immediate right to the possession of the goods against the person in possession of the goods and who, in the face of a proper demand to deliver them up, has failed or refused to do so without lawful excuse.

28 The defendant stated that he is entitled to the sum of the vehicles seized in the sum of $200,000 plus general and aggravated damages.

29 The defendant stated that it is not in dispute that he relied on the assurances that were made orally and summarised the essential elements of proprietary estoppel. He also incurred expenses in excess of $150,000 and averred that the claimant consented to all of the work being done on the both parcels. Further, that he entered into an oral agreement with the claimant to have a valuation done but ultimately the claimant failed to assist the defendant engaging the valuator by providing the documents for the subjected property. Therefore, the defendant ought to find that a case for proprietary estoppel was made between the parties.

The claimant's submissions

30 It was submitted that the tenancy agreement states that the tenant is not to undertake any alterations and or repairs to the said premises without the consent of the landlady first and the defendant produced no evidence that he had the written consent of the landlady.

31 Further, the tenancy agreement was for a period of three years from 2013–2016 and expired for some time but the defendant continued in occupation of the said premises so the defendant is therefore holding as a month to month tenant and by law, the landlord can insist on double the monthly rent for the period of time the tenant is holding over.

32 As it relates to the alleged promise that the claimant stated that she would sell to him the premises,...