Lee Llewellyn Moore, Attorney-General of the State of Saint Christopher Nevis Anguilla and Esmond St. John Payne, Minister of Agriculture of the State of Saint Christopher Nevis Anguilla Defendants/Appellants v Reginald Douglas Evelyn Yearwood Charles Earle Berkeley Walwyn John Leslie Wigley Dennis Sydney Blake Agnes Eulalie Mallalieu William Archibald Kelsick Donald Lloyd Matheson Clive Edward Jordan and Steuart Arthur Hamilton Davis Plaintiffs/Respondents [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)
• Judge: PETERKIN, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 11 December 1978
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1978] ECSC J1211-1
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6 of 1977
• Date: 11 December 1978

[1978] ECSC J1211-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Peterkin—Ag. Chief Justice

The Hon. Mr. Justice Berridge—(Acting)

The Hon. Mr. Justice Renwick—(Acting)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6 of 1977

Between:

Lee Llewellyn Moore, Attorney-General of the State of Saint Christopher Nevis Anguilla and Esmond St. John Payne, Minister of Agriculture of the State of Saint Christopher Nevis Anguilla

Defendants/Appellants

and

Reginald Douglas Evelyn Yearwood

Charles Earle Berkeley Walwyn

John Leslie Wigley

Dennis Sydney Blake

Agnes Eulalie Mallalieu

William Archibald Kelsick

Donald Lloyd Matheson

Clive Edward Jordan and

Steuart Arthur Hamilton Davis

Plaintiffs/Respondents

Appearances:

Attorney-General for Appellants H. Browne with him.

F. Henville and F. Kelsick for Respondents, C. Wilkin with them.

PETERKIN, J.A.

1 This is an appeal from the judgment of Glasgow J in which he held that Act No. 2 of 1975, either in its original form or as amended by Act No. 8 of 1975, was null, void and of no effect in that it contravened or was ultra vires the Constitution. He accordingly held that a number of the estates the subject matter of this action are still vested in certain of the Plaintiffs/Respondents, that they are entitled to possession, and that the purported acquisition of them was null, void, and of no effect. He also held that the entry into possession by the Government in pursuance of the Act and all acts done in purported execution of the enactment were unlawful, and he granted an injunction against the Minister of Agriculture restraining him and his servants or agents from entering or remaining on the lands, and awarded damages in favour of each of the successful Plaintiffs/Respondents.

2 The facts which gave rise to the action are conceded to have been admirably set out in the judgment of the trial judge at pages 474 to 492 of the record. A short summary of these facts is necessary for the purposes of this appeal. The Sugar Industry is and has for a very long time been the only real industry in the State, and provides about 40% of Government revenue. In 1971 sugar production which in previous years had exceeded 50,000 tons dropped to about 25,000 tons. The increased costs of production and the low static price of sugar was in the main responsible for the decline of the industry. About one half of the sugar estates in St. Kitts were operating at a loss. The owners of those estates found it difficult to obtain financial assistance to enable them to produce a crop. Most of the remaining estates just managed to break even. Consequently, as a prelude to the 1972 sugar harvest the owners of the sugar estates through their representative the St. Kitts Sugar Association Limited, sought and received from Government a commitment to guarantee loans raised by the estates for operations connected with the 1972 harvest. In 1972 the Association made a similar approach to Government in connection with the 1973 harvest. Subsequently, a sub-committee was set up, and, after discussions, a proposal was put forward by the Association for the estate owners to pool their resources on the understanding that Government would finance the operations and recoup from the proceeds. It was put forward and agreed that the sugar industry rescue operation should be undertaken by a company called St. Kitts Holdings Limited, and that the Government should have equity in that Company. The Banks refused to lend money to the Company but expressed willingness to lend the Government the money on condition that Government carried on the operations and assumed liability for the repayment. Government obtained loans from the Banks and began to spend money on the estates. The Sugar Industry Rescue Operation (SIRO) had come into being. Subsequent discussions led to what is known as the SIRO Agreement which was signed on 19th December, 1972. It was made between the Government of the State of the one part, and the Association acting therein "on behalf of its members who are the owners of the Sugar estates in St. Kitts listed in the Schedule" to the said Agreement of the other part. The Agreement is set out in part at pages 476 to 479 of the record.

3 As far back as 15th March, 1972, negotiations commenced between the Government and the Association representing the owners of the sugar estates with a view to achieving a long term solution for the industry which would be mutually acceptable. At a meeting held on that day the owners of the sugar estates, through the Association, offered to sell the Government all their sugar estate lands with the exception of certain houses and certain portions of land for £3.5 million. Government requested the Association to put the offer in writing, and nearly two years later (on 29th January, 1974) the Association put into writing a modified versic of the offer but increased the price to £4.1 million. On 7/6/74 the Secretary of the Association wrote to the Premier of the State indicating that the figure quoted would have to be increased, and by letter of 25/7/74 he again wrote to the Premier withdrawing the offer. On 16th September, 1974, in a further letter to the Premier the Secretary of the Association informed him that the members of the Association were now prepared to accept £4.9 million for all the estates which were included in the previous offer of £4.1 million.

4 By letter dated 19th October, 1974, the Minister of Agriculture offered the Secretary of the Association $4 million E.C. for the lands listed in the schedule to the writing entitled "Offer of sale of Sugar Estates to the Government" totalling $22,560 ³/₄ acres, less certain areas named. On 31/10/74 the Secretary of the Association wrote to the Minister stating that Government's offer of $4 million E.C. was totally unacceptable. The Minister replied by letter of 9th November, 1974, making it clear that the Government proposed to purchase all the land requisite to establish and maintain a viable sugar industry and was not interested merely in buying those areas which the various individual owners may happen to wish to sell. In regard to the price, the Minister further stated that the Government would be prepared to continue negotiat in the hope that agreement could be reached on an acceptable figure. In reply to the Association's previous request for clarification as to the method of payment, the minister stated that payment show be made in equal instalments of principal and interest.

5 On 9th December, 1974, a meeting took place between representatives of the St. Kitts Sugar Association and the Government under the chairmanship of the Minister, and on 13th December, the Secretary of the Association wrote to the Minister a letter static inter alia that in an effort to cooperate with Government the Association was offering on behalf of the owners to sell to Government certain specified estates subject to certain exceptions listed for $24 million E.C. They suggested either a cash payment of $6 million, with the balance to be secured by a mortgage payable over 12 years of equal annual instalments with interest; or the formatic of a centralised company. By letter of 18th December the Minister put forward two amended proposals, and asked for a reply by 24th December. By letter of 23rd December the Secretary informed the Minister that the Association required more time to consider the matter as they wished to obtain further professional advice and to consult with their principals. The Government regarded this letter as putting an end to the discussions as far as voluntary negotiations were concerned.

6 In the meantime, Government had already introduced in the House of Assembly a Bill for an Act to provide for the acquisition of the Sugar Estates lands in the island of St. Christopher and for the payment of compensation therefor and for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith. The Bill was finally passed into law on 28/1/75 and entitled the Sugar Estates Land Acquisition Act 1975 (No. 2 of 1975).

7 The Minister purported to appoint the 31st day of January, 1975, as the date on which "there shall be transferred to and vested in the Crown any of the interests specified in Sections 2 and 3 of the Act". This purported appointment was made by an Order entitled the Sugar Estates' Land Acquisition (Appointed Day Order 1975 (S.R. & O. 1975, No. 4). The Order is stated to be made pursuant to sec. 10 of the Act. On 31st January the Minister and other members of Cabinet entered upon the lands of Buckley's Estate, and formally took possession of all the Sugar Estates' Lands in the Island of St. Christopher under the Act.

8 Three days after the Act was passed the Plaintiffs/Respondents caused a writ to be issued against the Defendants/Appellants claiming among other things, (a) a declaration that the Sugar Estates' Lands Acquisition Act, (No. 2 of 1975) is unconstitutional void, and of no effect, and, (b) an injunction restraining the Defendants/Appellants and either of them, by themselves or any other person authorised by them, from entering upon the lands purportedly acquired by the said Act, and from taking any other action to the prejudice of the Plaintiffs/Respondents. On 30th June, 1975 the Sugar Estates' Lands Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1975, No. 8 of 1975, was passed by the House of Assembly, and came into force on 2nd July, 1975. It made necessary the amended statement of claim and the amended Defence. The Plaintiffs/Respondents pleaded as follows at paragraphs 6, 6A and 9 of their statement of claim as amended:—

• "6. The Plaintiffs contend that the Act is unconstitutional void and of no effect in that it contravenes the provisions of the said Section 6 of the Constitution on the following grounds (inter alia):—

  • (a) The Act does not prescribe the proper principles by which full compensation for the compulsory taking of the proprietary interests of the plaintiffs in...