Richardson et Al v Richardson

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Sir Vincent Floissac. C.J.
• Judgment Date: 18 September 1995
• Neutral Citation: AI 1995 CA 6
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1992
• Date: 18 September 1995
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)

Court of Appeal

Floissac, C.J. Byron, J.A. Singh, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1992

Richardson et al

and

Richardson

Appearances:

Mr. Lee Moore Q.C. and Mr. Thomas Astaphan for the appellants

Miss Joyce Kentish and Miss S. Dickson for the respondent

Practice and procedure - Whether the appellate judgment of the High Court was irregular — Whether the action was an abuse of the process of the court — Ownership of land between the heirs of a deceased'sfather or heirs of a deceased'sson — The appellants never objected to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court when it was being exercised and the decision had since been affirmed by and merged in a judgment of this court — Too late to protest against the decision — The issue of ownership of the disputed land was finally and conclusively determined on its merits — There are no special circumstances which entitle the appellants to relitigate that adjudicated issue in the interest of justice — Appellants estopped per rem judicatem from relitigating that issue — Appellant attempted to do so — Abuse of the process of the Court — Appeal dismissed.

Sir Vincent Floissac. C.J.

1 In the year 1975, a dispute arose between the heirs of a deceased father (Abraham) and the heirs of a deceased son (John) as to the ownership of a parcel of land known as West End Block 18111B, Parcel 1 (the disputed land) being a portion of the Long Bay Estate situate in the island of Anguilla. The issue was whether the disputed land belonged to the heirs of Abraham (the late Abraham Benjamin Richardson from whom the appellants claim to inherit) or to the heirs of John (the late John Richard Richardson from whom the respondent claims to inherit). That issue was litigated firstly in original and appellate proceedings before the Adjudication Officer appointed under the Land Adjudication Ordinance (No. 2 of 1974) of Anguilla, secondly in appellate proceedings in the High Court in appellate suit No. 21 of 1977 and thirdly in this Court of Appeal in appeal No. 3 of 1985.

2 In the original and appellate proceedings before the Adjudication Officer, Alfred Richardson purported to represent Abraham'sheirs and the respondent purported to represent John'sheirs. The appellants (other than the third-named appellant) all testified in the original proceedings and generally participated therein without objection to the pretensions of Alfred Richardson and the respondent to represent Abraham'sheirs and John'sheirs respectively.

3 In the appellate proceedings in the High Court in appellate suit No. 21 of 1977, the respondent continued to represent John'sheirs and it is recorded that “At last sitting the Heirs of Abraham Richardson indicated that Mr. Hubert Hughes is now representing them.” Whereupon it was ordered that “Hubert Hughes now appears in Alfred Richardson'splace as respondent in 21/1977, 22/1977 and 30/1977.”

4 By judgment delivered on 12th May 1985 in the said appellate proceedings in the High Court, Joseph J. allowed the respondent'sappeal against the decision of the Adjudication Officer and ordered that “the Eastern portion of Long Bay Estate, with the exception of the areas of the Estate that were the subject of a consent Order made on 25th April, 1983, vest in the personal representative of the estate of John Richard Richardson”. By judgment delivered on 8th July 1987 in appeal No.3 of 1985, this Court affirmed the judgment of Joseph J. in every respect. There has been no appeal from that judgment of this Court.

5 On 12th July 1990, the appellants instituted suit No.49 of 1990 in the High Court against the respondent and thereby sought to relitigate the adjudicated issue of the ownership of the disputed land. Whereupon the respondent issued a summons under R.S.C. Order 18 rule 19 and thereby applied for an order dismissing the action on the ground (inter alia) that it was an abuse of the process of the Court. The summons was heard by Williams J. By judgment delivered on 28th February 1992, the learned judge dismissed the action on the ground that it was res judicata and consequently an abuse of the process of the Court. The appellants are dissatisfied with the judgment and have appealed against it.

6 The issues in this appeal are (1) whether the appellate judgment of the High Court in Suit No. 21 of 1977 was irregular and...