Williams v Blaize
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Rahim, J. |
| Judgment Date | 29 September 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2011 HC 279 |
| Docket Number | C.V. 2132 of 2007 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 29 September 2011 |
High Court
Rahim, J.
C.V. 2132 of 2007
Mr. D. Alexander instructed by Mr. D. De Peiza for the claimant.
Mr. S. Marcus SC instructed by Mr. A. Mc Kell for the defendant.
Real property - Sale of property — Claimant occupying property pending completion of sale — Defendant failing to produce Clearance Certificate needed to complete sale — Alleged defects of title — Claimant refusing to vacate premises — Claimant to pay defendant damages for trespass and to vacate the premises.
The facts of this case are in large measure undisputed. This is a claim for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a certain townhouse situated at Stirling Court, Cleaver Road, Arima. The claimant also seeks declarations that the agreement for sale (the agreement) intended to pass a nine hundred and ninety nine (999) year leasehold interest in the land on which the townhouse stands and that the defendant is not entitled to rescind the agreement or forfeit the claimant's deposit. Alternatively, the claimant seeks damages for breach of contract. By way of counterclaim, the defendant seeks, among other things, vacant possession of the townhouse and damages for trespass to property.
Witness statements were filed on the claimant's case by the claimant and Carlyle Ambrose Serrano, Attorney at law. On the part of the Defence, both the defendant and Harold Williams, a valuation surveyor, gave witness statements. All witnesses were cross examined at trial.
From the evidence, the following facts can be gleaned.
The defendant as vendor and the claimant as purchaser entered into a written agreement for the sale of a townhouse on the 14th October 2003. The townhouse was one of several units being constructed by the defendant as part of a leasehold building scheme known as Wage Stirling Court located at Cleaver Road, Arima. The parties agreed to a purchase price of $350,000.00 of which the claimant paid the sum of $35,000.00 to the defendant by way of deposit. By clause 4 of the agreement, it was also agreed that the claimant would pay the balance of the purchase price within forty five (45) days of being provided with the completion certificate for the townhouse by the defendant.
In December 2005, the claimant sought and obtained approval for a loan from the Trinidad and Tobago Mortgage Finance Company (TTMF) to finance the balance of the purchase price. This was indicated to the defendant by letter of the 9th December 2005. Completion of the building was approved on the 15th December 2006 and the completion certificate issued thereafter. By letter dated 19th January 2007, the defendant provided the claimant with a copy of the certificate and advised that pursuant to the agreement the closing date for the transaction was forty five days thereafter, namely, the 5th March 2007.
Sometime in February 2007 the claimant sought the defendant's permission to occupy the townhouse pending completion of the sale. The parties entered into a licence agreement for one (1) month commencing on the 22nd February 2007 at a monthly sum of $ 410.00. On the 5th March 2007, the defendant executed a Deed of Lease in escrow for the townhouse.
On the 21st March 2007, the defendant wrote to the claimant indicating that the licence agreement would come to an end on the 22nd March 2007, and that thereafter, her Wage continued occupation of the premises would be subject to a monthly licence fee of $3,000.00. The claimant replied by letter dated the 29th March 2007. It is necessary to set out in full the contents of both these letters.
Letter by the defendant: March 21, 2007
Ms. Nidra Williams
Dear Madam
RE: OCCUPATION OF PREMISES AT UNIT 3, STIRLING COURTS, OFF CLEAVER ROAD, ARIMA
We refer to the matter at caption.
Please be advised that your license agreement comes to an end on 22nd March, 2007. In this regard please be advised that should you be required to continue occupation of the said premises it would be subject to a payment of a license fee of $3,000.00 per month for each month of occupation or part thereof. You have been provided with a WASA Certificate of Completion dated 30th October, 2006 together with all the relevant documents which have been made available to you over a month and a half ago.
Please be further advised that the water supply has been metered, as such you have been billed for what you have actually used and according to your license agreement, you would be responsible for the water that has been used by your particular unit.
In the circumstances, the clearance certificate would be requested for the period October 2006 to January 2007 or alternatively, if you are seriously interested in completing this transaction, 1 would be willing to provide you with an indemnity with respect to all monies that may be owing for water rates for the period October 2006 to January 2007 (see draft indemnity enclosed).
Please be advised accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Sgd. COLVIN E. BLAIZE
Attorney-at-Law cc- TTMF — Ms. Charlene Williams
Reply by the claimant:
March 29, 2007
Dear Mr. Blaize
Further to your letter dated March 21, which I received March 29, I wish to advise that I will not be intimidated or swayed by your legal manoeuvrings. Wage
I have submitted all of the documentation required to complete my mortgage transaction for Unit #3 Stirling Court to the Trinidad and Tobago Mortgage Finance Company (TTMF). The only document needed to complete the transaction is the WASA clearance certificate which must be submitted to TTMF by you.
The officials at TTMF have confirmed that they will not accept the indemnity which you have attached to your correspondence of March 21 and have once again asked that you provide the WASA clearance certificate as soon as possible.
I trust that in the interest of completing this transaction you will no longer send me irrelevant correspondence but will instead focus your energies on ensuring that the WASA clearance certificate reaches TTMF — Ms. Charlene Williams in a timely fashion.
I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter.
Regards
Sgd. Nidra Williams c.c. Charlene Williams, Trinidad and Tobago Mortgage Finance Company
It is noted that in his letter, the defendant indicated that he had already provided a WASA Clearance Certificate to the claimant but would request a new one up to the period ending January 2007. The rationale for this according to the letter was that the townhouse occupied by the claimant pursuant to the license had been metered and the claimant had been billed. It followed that the defendant was saying that it was the claimant's responsibility to pay off the water rates for the period of occupation and source a WASA Clearance. However, there is no indication by way of the said letter that water rates were in fact owed for the period of February to March. The defendant indicated that alternatively, if the claimant was “seriously interested in completing” the transaction, he would provide an indemnity for outstanding water rates.
Therefore it seems that by the 21st March 2007, the defendant appeared to have entertained doubts about the claimant's intention to complete the agreement.
The tone of the letter sent by way of reply by the claimant appears not to be in keeping with that sent by the defendant and is somewhat unnecessarily accusatory in content. Nowhere in her letter does the claimant appear to accept that she was responsible for the payment of water rates for the period of her occupation. Neither does she indicate that same was paid up.
The court notes that by Clause B(O) of the Licence Agreement, the claimant was indeed responsible for the payment of water rates during her occupation. It appears to the court by inference that the claimant was saying to the defendant that regardless of whether the water rates had to be paid by the claimant, it was the defendant's duty to obtain the Clearance Certificate and provide same directly to TTMF. By reason of deduction, this would mean that should the defendant have applied for the Clearance Certificate up to the month of March 2007, and in so doing, discovered that rates were owed for the period of occupation, he would of necessity have had to pay those rates in order to obtain the Clearance Certificate. This would have been unreasonable having regard to the contents of the Licence Agreement.
By paragraph 7 of her witness statement however, the claimant stated that since entering into occupation she has paid all the water charges. But no bills or receipts have been annexed. It therefore remains unclear whether those charges had in fact been paid at the time of the above exchange of letters.
By letter dated 4th April 2007, the defendant refuted the allegation that he was attempting to intimidate the claimant and strongly and quite properly advised her to seek independent legal advice. He also advised the claimant that her continued occupation of the property prior to completion would be subject to his terms and conditions and that the sum of $3,000.00 was due and owing and would continue to accrue monthly from the 22nd March 2007.
On 23rd April 2007, the defendant wrote to Attorney at law for the claimant, Mr. Serrano, advising that the sale was not yet completed despite the previous correspondence and that a further license fee of $3,000.00 was now due. It is to be noted that this was almost one month after the claimant had indicted to the defendant in her letter of the 29th March 2007 that the WASA Clearance Certificate was outstanding.
By letter dated 26th April 2007, the defendant called upon the claimant to complete the transaction by the 30th April 2007, time being of the essence, failing which the agreement would be terminated and her deposit forfeited.
It is to be noted that up to this point in time, there is no evidence that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial