Mohammed et Al v McClean et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Bastide, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 October 1966
• Neutral Citation: TT 1966 HC 14
• Docket Number: No. 202 of 1955
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 14 October 1966

High Court of Justice

Karl de la Bastide, J.

No. 202 of 1955

Mohammed et al

and

McClean et al

Tort - Damages — Assault and Battery — Plaintiffs claimed damages for assault and battery. Defendants wanted to repossess a Singer sewing machine in the possession of the plaintiffs. Defendants therefore forced their way into the plaintiffs' home and a fight ensued. Various articles in the plaintiffs' home were damaged as a result. — There had been a trespass to both person and property coupled with some damage to the goods and chattels of the plaintiffs. These are matters which in law sound in damages. Plaintiffs therefore awarded $50 in damages for assault and battery. Damages however only awarded against the defendant Charles McClean as the second defendant does not appear to have been involved in the incident.

Damages - Trespass — Damage to goods and chattels. Plaintiffs claimed damages for wrongful entry into the plaintiffs' house and for injury to certain of the plaintiffs' goods and chattels therein. Defendants were the agents for Singer Sewing Machine Company. Wanted to repossess a Singer Sewing machine in the possession of the plaintiffs. Defendants therefore forced their way into the plaintiffs' home and a fight ensued. Various articles in the plaintiffs' home were damaged. — There had been a trespass to both person and property coupled with some damage to the goods and chattels of the plaintiffs. These are matters which in law sound in damages. Even though defendants were owners of chattels hired or pledged they had no right to enter forcibly or otherwise without consent the property of a third person not a party to or in any way connected with the transaction. Plaintiffs therefore awarded $75 in respect of damage to their property and $400 in respect of the trespass. Damages however only awarded against the defendant Charles McClean as the second defendant does not appear to have been involved in the incident.

Bastide, J.

1 This case arose out of certain incidents which occurred as long ago as October 1953 and it is therefore, not surprising that at its hearing in 1966, many of the details thereof must perforce have become somewhat dimmed in the memory of the several participants.

2 The plaintiffs' claim was set out under two heads:–

• (a) Damages for assault and battery;

• (b) Damages for wrongful entry into the plaintiffs' house and for injury to certain of the plaintiffs' goods and chattels therein.

3 The facts found by the Court may be stated as concisely as possible in the following terms:–

4 The plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, lived together at their home at Teelucksingh Street, California, in central Trinidad. The defendants who are father and son, resided at Exchange Village, Couva, where the former carried on business which included an agency of the Singer Sewing Machine Company for that district. It is clear from the evidence that the defendant had decided to repossess a certain Singer Sewing Machine No. E.E.994215 which had on 29th December 1950, been let by the Singer Company under the usual form of Hire Purchase Agreement to one Ivy Clarke who resided at Main Road, California.

5 With this object in view, the defendant Charles Mc Lean accompanied by two strong armed “assistants” set out on 7th October 1953 for California Village where they obtained information from the said Ivy Clarke as to the then whereabouts of the wanted machine which it would appear the latter had meanwhile either pledged or sold to plaintiff Ibrahim Mohammed.

6 Mc Lean and his companions next proceeded to the plaintiff's home at Teelucksingh Street where in the absence of the plaintiff Ibrahim Mohammed they were received at the door by his wife Korisha of whom the defendant Charles Mc Lean immediately enquired whether she had any sewing machine, and, on her replying in the affirmative, asked that he be allowed to inspect same. She then stated that her husband was not at home and that he the defendant could not therefore be permitted to enter the home. An argument ensued in which the defendant Charles Mc Lean was insisting that he be allowed to see the machine, presumably to check the serial number, and if necessary to seize it while the said plaintiff Korisha Mohammed for the reason already stated, continued to refuse him admittance to the house adding that she had never bought any machine from him.

7 The defendant Charles Mc Lean apparently angered by this plaintiff's refusal then forced his way into the house by pushing the plaintiff Korisha from the door and then entering with one of his assistants Joseph Dorking who incidentally in his evidence here failed in many important respects to corroborate the evidence given by Mc Lean.

8 The defendant, Charles Mc Lean together with this assistant and despite the protests of the plaintiff Korisha, next forced their way into the plaintiff's bedroom and there seized a sewing machine and apparently attempted to pull it out towards the front door of the house. The plaintiff Korisha resisted such...