Joyce Myrtle Cheddie v Inshan Hosein

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mr Justice Robin N Mohammed
• Judgment Date: 26 October 2023
• Neutral Citation: TT 2023 HC 335
• Docket Number: Claim No. CV2019-01591
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

Between

Joyce Myrtle Cheddie

Simeon Rampersad

Merle Rampersad

Kenrick Rampersad

Claimants/Ancillary Defendants

and

Inshan Hosein

Defendant/Ancillary Claimant

Before

The Honourable Mr Justice Robin N Mohammed

Claim No. CV2019-01591

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (SUB-REGISTRY)

Appearances:

Ms Ngozi Ihezue for the Claimants

Mr Michael Vialva instructed by Ms Shabaana Mohammed for the Defendant

1 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.

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

3 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.

4 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.

5 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.

6 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.

7 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.

8 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.

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