Joyce Myrtle Cheddie v Inshan Hosein

JurisdictionTrinidad & Tobago
JudgeMr Justice Robin N Mohammed
Judgment Date26 October 2023
Neutral CitationTT 2023 HC 335
Docket NumberClaim No. CV2019-01591
CourtHigh Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
Joyce Myrtle Cheddie
Simeon Rampersad
Merle Rampersad
Kenrick Rampersad
Claimants/Ancillary Defendants
Inshan Hosein
Defendant/Ancillary Claimant

The Honourable Mr Justice Robin N Mohammed

Claim No. CV2019-01591



Ms Ngozi Ihezue for the Claimants

Mr Michael Vialva instructed by Ms Shabaana Mohammed for the Defendant


By Claim Form and Statement of Case filed on 17 th April 2019 amended on 3 rd July 2019, the Claimants commenced proceedings against the Defendant. They allege that on 11 th May 2018, the Defendant illegally and unlawfully trespassed upon their lands by constructing a road/or access to his land without the consent and/or permission of the Claimants and wrongfully deprived them of the use of their lands.


On 11 th June 2019 the Defendant filed his Defence and on 15 th July 2010 he filed an Amended Defence and Counterclaim.


Pursuant to the Order of the Court dated 22 nd July 2019, time was extended for the Claimant to file a Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.


On 18 th October 2019, the Defendant filed the subject Notice of Application wherein he sought to strike out the Claimant's Reply and Defence to Counterclaim filed on 11 th September 2019 on the ground that it amounts to an abuse of process.


The Claimant filed submissions in opposition to the application on 2 nd December 2019 and the Defendant filed his reply submissions on 11 th December 2019.


I have reviewed the document titled Reply and Defence to Counterclaim filed by the Claimant and considered the submissions of the parties and I am of the view that document falls far short of the requirements for a proper Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.


While it has become a practice amongst members of the bar to merge a Reply and Defence to Counterclaim in one document, it cannot be overstated that these types of pleading serve two distinct purposes.


A Reply is designed to give a Claimant the opportunity to respond to any new matters or allegations raised in a Defence that they could not have previously addressed in their Statement of Case. Simply put, it must not be used to deny allegations stated in the Defence as a “defence to the defence” nor raise new allegations which ought properly to be included in the Claimant's Statement of Case.


A Defence to Counterclaim is as the name implies, a defence to the Claim filed by the Defendant and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT