Mungalsingh v Lennox Petroleum Services Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Permanand, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 August 1984
• Neutral Citation: TT 1984 CA 47
• Docket Number: No. 3056 of 1984
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 02 August 1984

Court of Appeal

Permanand, J.

No. 3056 of 1984

Mungalsingh

and

Lennox Petroleum Services Ltd et al

Appearances:

Mr. C. Phelps and Mr. P. Gascon for plaintiff

Mr. B. Ramlogan, Mr. F. Solomon and Mr. R. Armour for defendants

Injunction - Interlocutory injunction — Defendant to deliver possession of land to plaintiff — Application to continue injunction — Evidence that plaintiff did not disclose all relevant facts — Injunction discharged.

Permanand, J.

1 On July 4, 1904 the plaintiff applied for and obtained an interlocutory injunctions ex-parte against the defendants. The Order made by Hannays J. on the said 4th July. 1984 is as follows:

• “1. That the first, second, third and fourth defendants do forthwith deliver up to the plaintiff possession of all and singular that piece or parcel of land situate in the Ward of Siparia comprising 1 acre 1 rood and 35 perches and bounded on the north by the Moulai River, on the south by lands formerly Apex (Trinidad) Oilfield Limited now belonging to Trinidad Tesoro Petroleum Company Limited on the east by lands registered in the name of Apex (Trinidad) Oilfields Limited but now belonging to Trinidad Tesoro Petroleum Company Limited on the west by the Fyzabad Guapo Road more particularly described and delineated in the plan attached to the deed of lease made between the second defendant and Trinidad Tesoro Petroleum Company Limited on the 5th day of March, 1979.

• 2. That the first, second, third and fourth defendants and each and every of them be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining them and each and every of them whether by themselves, or by their servants, agents, officers, workmen, representatives, associates, partners or howsoever otherwise from entering, occupying, being upon, being in central of, or crossing the said premises until after the 17th day of July, 1904 or until further order.

• 3. That the first, second, third and fourth defendant and each and every of them be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining them and each and everyone of them whether by themselves or by their servants, agents, officers, workmen, representatives, associates, partners or otherwise howsoever from assigning, leasing, sub-letting, transferring, parting with, surrendering or causing to be assigned, lease, sub-let, transferred, surrendered, forfeited or from in any way dealing with the said premises.

• 4. That the fifth defendant be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted against it restraining it whether by its servants, agents, officers or workmen or otherwise howsoever from removing, dumping, transporting, or in any way interfering with the vehicles, equipment, or other goods of the plaintiff lying in or situate upon or in the immediate vicinity of the said premises until after the 17th day of July, 1984 or until further order in the meantime.”

2 On the said July 4, 1984 the plaintiff issued a summons returnable on duly 17, 1984 for the continuation of the injunction granted on July 4, 1984 i.e. the injunction granted at (2) and (4) of the Order referred to above.

3 With respect to (1) of the Order — Hannays J. ordered the first, second, third and fourth defendants to forthwith deliver up possession of the parcel of land referred to in the Order.

4 With respect to (3) of the Order — Hannays J. granted against the first, second, third and fourth defendants an injunction restraining them, their servants and or agents, officers, workman representatives etc., from assigning, leasing, sub-letting, transferring, parting with, surrendering or causing to be assigned, leased, sub-let, transferred, surrendered, forfeited or from in any way dealing with the said premises.

5 With respect to (4) of the Order on Monday July 30, 1984 with the leave of this court, the plaintiff discontinued the injunction granted by Hannays J. on the said July 4, 1984 against the fifth defendant with costs agreed upon.

6 The plaintiff's application was supported by his affidavit and an affidavit filed by Robin Montano, solicitor on the said July 4, 1984. Supplemental affidavit of the plaintiff was filed on July 19, 1984 and an affidavit filed on the plaintiff's behalf on July 19, 1984 by one Herbert Campbell and by Master Douglin on July 31, 1984. The first-named defendant filed an affidavit on July 13, 1984 and a supplemental affidavit on July 19, 1984. Also on behalf of the first-named defendant one Sham Supersad filed an affidavit and one Harrypersad Ramroop and on July 31, 1984 Solicitor Sherwin Seenath filed an affidavit also on behalf of the first defendant.

7 In his affidavit, the plaintiff referred to the Writ of Summons filed herein which states that he is the owner and entitled to possession of the parcel of land the subject matter of these proceedings.

8 According to the affidavit of Robin Montano, he deposed that by Writ of Summons issued on 1st September 1982 in H.C.A. 3450 82 the second named defendant claimed he was the owner of the said premises and entitled to immediate possession thereof and that the judgment was taken up in default of appearance against the plaintiff which aid judgment was carried into execution and that same was stayed by Master Douglin on November 9, 1982 and further on March 4, 1983 and that the judgment of Master Douglin is still outstanding.

9 Solicitor Robin Montano deposed at paragraph 7 of his affidavit that there are two lis pendens registered against the said property — one by the first named defendant and the second one by the plaintiff herein.

10 The first defendant in his affidavit filed on July 13, 1984 deposed that the plaintiff failed to make payments to the third defendant the receiver of the second defendant, for the purchase of the said premises and as a consequence, the third defendant rescinded the contract with the plaintiff and around January 1984, the first defendant commenced negotiations for the purchase of the said promises and on 11th April, 1984 the purchase price of the said premises was completely paid to the Trinidad and Tobago Development Finance and that on April 19, 1984 he was granted possession of the said premises and remained in undisturbed possession until July 9, 1984 when the plaintiff served a copy of the Order of Hannays J. After the first defendant took possession of the said premises, it commenced electrical connection on the premises and water connection and that in the month...