Barzey v Vieira

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Moe, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 11 May 1992
• Neutral Citation: AI 1992 CA 1
• Docket Number: 2 of 1986
• Date: 11 May 1992
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)

Court of Appeal

Robatham, C.J. Moe, J.A. Byron, J.A.

2 of 1986

Barzey

and

Vieira

Real property - Possession of land — Whether the appellant has a better right to possession than the respondent — Respondent was in actual possession of the land — Actualpossession is good against all except those who can show a better right to possession in themselves — The appellant did not so show — The appellant trespassed on the disputed land — Respondent challenges the amount awarded — There was a break in the performance of the building contract by the appellant which the respondents had entered into — The evidence for a variation of contract was thin and vague — Respondent did not prove required loss — The respondent in the circumstances entitled to an award — Special damages awarded — Appeal dismissed.

Moe, J.A.

1 This appeal is from a judgment in which the learned judge found that the appellant, a child of Maria Richardson now deceased, trespassed on a parcel of land, numbered Lot 43 in Road Section Block 08512B — which formed part of the Estate of the said Maria Richardson and at the material time held by and in the possession of the respondent, who was not a child of the said deceased Maria Richardson. The learned judge also found that the appellant prevented the respondent'sbuilding contractor from working on the lot and awarded the respondent $21,675.00 special damages and costs.

2 Maria Richardson died intestate in November 1972. Her husband Henry Richardson obtained letters of administration to her estate on 16th September, 1979, Henry Richardson as personal representative of the deceased Maria Richardson transferred the lot to the respondent.

3 On 19th March, 1980 the respondent was registered in the Land Register as proprietor of the lot with absolute title and issued with a Certificate of Title on 23rd May, 1980.

4 In August 1981 the respondent entered into an oral contract with a construction company to build a house for her on the lot for U.S.$48,000.00. She paid a deposit of $10,000, the company did excavations, placed stakes and laid out lines. The appellant pulled up the stakes and lines and placed broken bottles on the lot. The broken bottles were removed at a cost of $75.00 and the company stopped work. In March 1982 the respondent entered into a written contract with the same construction company to build the house for the price of U.S.$57,000.00.

5 To the respondent'sclaim that she was owner in possession of the lot and that the appellant had trespassed thereon and prevented the building work from being carried out, the appellant entered a denial, claimed that the respondent had no rights, title or interest in the lot, that she by error and/or fraud acquired registration of the lot in that she was never in possession of it by prescription, nor consideration, or through or under any other duly registered title and that in any event she has no claim to it which de jure emanates from the succession of the estate of Agatha Richardson. The appellant counterclaimed for rectification and cancellation of the registration of the lot.

6 The respondent admitted that she is not an heir of Agatha Richardson and that she holds the lot subject to any unregistered rights to which her father Henry Richardson held the lot.

7 In the judgment the learned judge expressed the view that Henry Richardson ought not have transferred the lot to the respondent as she is not one of the persons entitled to share in the property of Maria Richardson but the judge found that the respondent was...