Papin v Wilson

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Hyatali, C.J.,Rees, J.A
• Judgment Date: 10 June 1974
• Neutral Citation: TT 1974 CA 10
• Docket Number: Mag. App. No. 57/74
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 10 June 1974

Court of Appeal

Hyatali, C.J.; Rees, J.A

Mag. App. No. 57/74

Papin

and

Wilson

The appellant appeared in person.

Mr. W. Gaspard appeared for the respondent.

Landlord and tenant - Notice to quit — Appeal against decision to deliver up possession.

Practice and procedure - Opportunity to be heard — Absences at court hearings — Whether absence fault of appellant or through some extraordinary circumstances — Whether trial possible.

1 CHIEF JUSTICE: The respondent in this case filed a complaint in the magistrates court, Port of Spain, alleging that the appellant's tenancy in respect of 2a Gonzales Terrace at $6.50 per month had expired on 23rd July by notice to quit but that the appellant had refused to deliver up possession of the said tenement and still defined it although he had been required to deliver up possession thereof. Hearing of the complaint was fixed for 24th September, 1973. It was adjourned on that date to 7th November, then from that date to 10th December, from that dated to 19th December and from that date to 7th February, 1974. The respondent was present on each occasion when the matter was called except on the last. The case was called up on 7th February at 10.00 a.m. but there was no appearance of the appellant and consequently the matter was stood down to 10:20 a.m. It was then called again. The defendant still being absent, the learned magistrate proceeded to hear the matter ex parte.

2 The ground upon which the respondent sought possession of these premises, which were rent controlled, was that the appellant was guilty of a nuisance to adjoining occupiers. The magistrate was satisfied that the respondent had proved nuisance sufficient to bring it within the provisions of s.14 (1) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance Ch. 27 No. 18, and that it was reasonable in all the circumstances for him to make the order of possession. He consequently ordered that a warrant of possession should issue but he suspended it to 28th February, 1974. The date on which the order was made was 7th February, 1974.

3 The appellant thereupon appealed against that decision on the statutory ground that he was not guilty and also on the ground that the case was tried ex parte. The second ground does not seem to be properly framed ground. It would appear that the appellant was complaining by that ground that the case was improperly proceeded with ex parte and we so interpreted it. On the proceedings there is an...