Jospeh Jacob v Maltee Jacob
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Mr Justice Westmin R.A. James |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2023 HC 206 |
| Docket Number | CV2021-02215 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
(As the Administrator Ad Litem appointed by order dated 2nd November 2020 of the Estate of Melita Olive Jacob)
The Hon Mr Justice Westmin R.A. James
CV2021-02215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Sub Registry: San Fernando
Mrs Mohanie Maharaj-Mohan Attorney-at-Law for the Applicant/Defendant
Nabilah Khan and Vishal Ramlal Attorneys-at-Law for the Respondent/Claimant
By Notice of Application dated 5 th April 2023 the Applicant/Defendant sought inter alia the following orders:
-
(a) That the Claimant's Fixed Date Claim Form and Supporting Affidavit filed on 9 th July 2021 be struck out as an abuse of process and the Claimant has no locus standi to bring this action against the Defendant.
-
(b) That the Claimant's Statement of Case filed on 19 th August 2021 be struck out as an abuse of process and the Claimant has no locus standi to bring this action against the Defendant.
-
(c) That the Claimant had ample time to amend his Fixed Date Claim Form and file a supplemental affidavit or Amended Statement of Case to include documentary evidence as the Administrator Ad Litem of the estate of Melita Olive Jacob who died on the 4 th December 2001.
This Court has considered all the written submissions and authorities presented to the Court by both parties. Having regard to the law and the facts at hand, this Court quite frankly did not see any merit or utility in the Application and therefore dismisses the Application. This Court has also found that the Respondent/Claimant, as Administrator Ad Litem appointed by the Court prior to the commencement of proceedings, have the requisite locus standi to initiate the substantive claim in this matter and thus the substantive claim as filed is valid.
The Applicant is legally aided and for that reason only, the Court would not order costs against her.
I have hereinafter detailed the reasons for my decision.
By Notice of Application dated 29 th September 2020 and filed on 8 th October 2020 and the Affidavit of Joseph Junior Ceaesar Jacobs sworn to on the 29 th September, 2020 and filed on 8 th October 2020 along with exhibits, Joseph Jacobs sought leave to be appointed Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of the deceased Melita Olive Jacob who died on 4 th December 2001 for the purpose of commencing and maintaining proceedings for the possession of a chattel house located at 39 Thick Village, Siparia Old Road that is alleged to form part of the deceased's estate.
By Order dated 2 nd November 2020 and stamped by the Registry on 6 th November 2020, the Honourable Madam Justice Jacqueline Wilson dealing with the matter in Chambers ordered that the Intended Claimant Joseph Junior Caesar Jacobs, be appointed Administrator Ad Litem of the estate of the deceased for the purpose of commencing and maintaining proceedings for the possession of a chattel house located at 39 Thick Village, Siparia Old Road, that is alleged to form part of the deceased's estate.
By Fixed Date Claim Form and Affidavit in Support of the Fixed Date Claim on the 9 th July 2021, the Respondent/Claimant as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of the deceased sought possession of the said property as Administrator ad litem. In the Affidavit Joseph Jacob in support of the Fixed Date Claim, the Respondent/Claimant deposed that he made the application to be appointed Administrator ad litem on the 8 th October 2020. He further deposed that the Honourable Madam Justice Wilson dealt with the application to be appointed Administrator ad litem of the Estate of the deceased and by order dated 2 nd November 2020 and stamped by the Registry on 6 th November 2020 appointed Mr Joseph Jacob as Administrator ad litem. A copy of the order was attached to that Affidavit.
Judgment in Default was obtained by the Respondent/Claimant on 21 st December 2021 for failing to enter an appearance and failing to file a Defence. That Judgment was subsequently set aside by order of the Honourable Madam Justice Wilson made on the 15 th June 2022. The Court then order that the Respondent/Claimant file a Statement of Case.
On 19 th August 2022, the Respondent/Claimant filed his Statement of Case. At paragraph 1 of the Statement of Case, the Respondent/Claimant pleaded that he was appointed Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Melita Olive Jacob by the Order of the Honourable Madam Justice Jacqueline Wilson. The Statement of Claim erroneously stated the date of the Order as 13 th December 2023 and attached that order. That Order was the one in which the Honourable Madam Justice Wilson ordered that the Respondent/Claimant as the Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Melita Olive Jacob was entitled to possession of the property.
By Defence and Counterclaim filed on the 3 rd October 2022, the Applicant/Defendant at paragraph 2 admitted the order by the Honourable Madam Justice Jacqueline Wilson. The Defence and Counterclaim went on to plead that notwithstanding that order there is no evidence of any grant sought or made on behalf of the Estate of Melita Olive Jacob. The Applicant/Defendant also pleaded that the property does not form part of the estate of the deceased. The Applicant/Defendant's counterclaimed for a declaration that she holds an equitable share and or interest in the property in question; alternatively, a declaration that she holds an equitable share and interest in the subject dwelling house; and alternatively that the Defendant pay to the Claimant his share an interest in the subject dwelling house.
By Reply and Defence to Counterclaim dated 1 st February 2023, the Respondent/Claimant pleaded that no Letters of Administrator has yet been granted in the estate of the deceased and that the property does form part of the estate of the deceased.
The matter was reassigned to this Court in March 2023 and in April 2023, this Court gave directions for the filing of submissions on the application.
The sole issue for determination in this application is whether the Respondent/Claimant as Administrator Ad Litem appointed before the commencement of proceedings has locus standi to commence an action on behalf of the Estate of a deceased prior to receiving the Grant of Letters of Administration.
The power of the court to strike out a Statement of Claim is provided for by Rule 26.2 (1) (b) and (c) of the CPR which provide as follows;
26.2 (1) The court may strike out a statement of case or part of a statement of case if it appears to the court—
(a) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or with an order or direction given by the court in the proceedings;
(b) that the statement of case or the part to be struck out is an abuse of the process of the court;
(c) that the statement of case or the part to be struck out discloses no grounds for bringing or defending a claim; or
(d) that the statement of case or the part to be struck out is prolix or does not comply with the requirements of Part 8 or 10.
This is considered a nuclear option and the rule ought not to be used except in the clearest of cases where a claim is obviously unsustainable, cannot succeed or in some other way is an abuse of the process of the court. 1 Where an arguable case is presented or the case raises...
To continue reading
Request your trial