Gumbs v Connor et Al

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Joseph, J.
• Judgment Date: 24 May 1985
• Neutral Citation: AI 1985 HC 1
• Docket Number: Civil Suit. No. 39 of 1976
• Date: 24 May 1985

High Court

Joseph, J.

Civil Suit. No. 39 of 1976

Gumbs

and

Connor et al

Appearances:

Miss M. Walwyn for appellant.

Dr. Henry Brown for first respondent.

Mr. John Benjamin for second respondent.

Real property - Ownership.

Facts:

This was an appeal under section 24 of the Land Adjudication Ordinance, 1974 from the decision of the Adjudication Officer that the first respondent was the owner of the land in dispute. The court found that the deed in question gave the appellant exclusive right to an easement. The question for determination was whether the deed was in fact made by the first respondent; and whether it conveyed the whole area of land owned by the first respondent or merely 31/2 acres.

Held:

There was not sufficient evidence before the court for it to find that the signature was not that of the first respondent. A strip of land retained by the first respondent over which the appellant had a right of way for a limited time lay to the north of the property. This finding was supported by evidence in the deed.

Joseph, J.

1 This is an appeal under Section 24 of the Land Adjudication Ordinance 1974 (No. 2 of 1974) from the decision of the Adjudication Officer dated 6th February 1975, that Frederick Connor was the owner of the land in dispute. I heard the appeal as a rehearing of the dispute and the Court visited the locus in quo.

2 The case for the appellant is that Frederick Connor's deed indicates that he owned a parcel of land comprising four acres more or less: that in 1960 Mr. Connor showed him (appellant) the parcel of land “starting from the sea” in the west to a public road in the east. The appellant accompanied by Frederick Connor, Phillip Lloyd and Harold Richardson visited the area of land so that Mr. Connor could measure half en acre which he wished to retain.

3 The appellant testified:

“It measured from southern extremity where there was existing bound with Charles Richardson and measured along the public road 75 feet approximately and went west running parallel with Charles Richardson for approximately 295 feet and bounds were laid down. The land on eastern bound was 100 feet or more. The land was measured running east 75 feet along the public road. The rest of land was mine. I bought from the public road where a strip of land is left, to the sea. He (Connor) retained 75 feet at frontage of land and 25 feet or more was to give me access to land that he was selling. My eastern bound was on public road”.

4 The appellant stated that he cleared the land up to the public road and cultivated it, including the retained half of an acre, which Mr. Connor gave him permission to cultivate and that nobody disturbed him from making use of the land.

5 In 1973, appellant stated he saw a number of persons erecting a wire across the entire width of the land. He told them they could erect a fence only around an area of 75 feet and the resulting dispute: was taken to the Adjudication Officer. The second respondent, he said, claimed more than half an acre. She claimed an area of land running from the public road to the point where the wire was being erected in 1973.

6 Under cross examination appellant testified that part of the eastern boundary of his land is bounded by the road, and that the other part is bounded by the half acre of land mentioned above and that he (appellant) had agreed to buy three and a half acres more or less of the land from Mr. Connor.

7 The case for the first respondent is that Frederick Connor never sold any land to the appellant. Mr. Connor's two daughters Clemence York and Adele Schobbe testified that a receipt that the appellant showed them when they visited him (seperately) was a receipt signed by their father relating to a payment of one hundred dollars which sum Frederick Connor had borrowed from the appellant.

8 The case for the second respondent Edith Cannegieter is that she bought an area of land from Frederick Connor and obtained a deed from him. The boundaries recited in the deed are;

On the north by road of Frederick Connor 900 feet

On south by lands of Nathaniel Connor 900 feet

On east by other lands of Samuel Connor 117 feet

On west by lands of the vendor 117 feet.

9 Mrs Cannegieter pointed out her boundaries when the Court visited the locus in quo. It appears that the road referred to in the deed on the north of the land is the private road of the appellant and not the road of Frederick Connor as recited in the deed. The boundary on the east as pointed out by the second respondent is the public road and not the lands of Samuel Connor as recited in the deed.

10 For reasons that will appear later, I make no further comment.

11 I find that the root of title is in a deed made on 10th August 1916 between Julia S. Vlann and Frederick Connor that conveyed to Frederick Connor land bounded

“To the east with the public road

To the west with the sea

To the south with lands of Luke A. Lake

To the north with lands of William Connor, said piece of land comprising four acres more or less”.

12 A deed No. 3109 made on 2nd August 1962 between Frederick D. Connor and Jeremiah Cumbs conveyed to the latter a Parcel of land at East Rendezvous bounded as follows:

“On the north by lands of Jeremiah Gumbs and Louisita Connor. On the south by lands of Jeremiah Gumbs and Nathan Romney and Charles Richardson.

On the east by a public road and lands of Frederick Connor.

On the west by the coast, and measuring approximately three and half acres more or less”.

13 The deed gave the appellant exclusive right to pass and repass over and use a...