Richardson v HM Commissioner for the Crown

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Bishop, J.A.,Robotham, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 15 April 1985
• Neutral Citation: AI 1985 CA 1
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1980
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)
• Date: 15 April 1985

Court of Appeal

Robotham, C.J., Bishop, J., Berridge, J. (Acting)

Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1980

Richardson

and

Her Majesty's Commissioner for the Crown

Real property - Title — Whether Crown entitled to grant of title to land

Practice and procedure - Appeal — Appeal against grant of title to part of Estate of Commissioner for the Crown by High Court Judge Land Adjudication Ordinance, 1974 s. 21(2) — Considerations which apply in making record of proceedings before the Adjudication Officer available on appeal to the court

Facts:This was an appeal by the heirs of Victoria Richardson against the decision of the High Court in which the trial judge shared the finding of the Adjudication Officers and granted absolute title to part of Mount Pleasant Estate to the Commissioner for the Crown. The issue was whether the appellants were entitled to possession of the estate against the Crown. The appellants claimed that the estate belonged to their father, and that he allowed Victoria Richardson to use it as she wished; that after their father'sdeath they occupied the land, and that the Government intruded by clearing part of the land

Facts: This was an appeal by the heirs of Victoria Richardson against the decision of the High Court in which the trial judge shared the finding of the Adjudication Officers and granted absolute title to part of Mount Pleasant Estate to the Commissioner for the Crown. The issue was whether the appellants were entitled to possession of the estate against the Crown. The appellants claimed that the estate belonged to their father, and that he allowed Victoria Richardson to use it as she wished; that after their father's death they occupied the land, and that the Government intruded by clearing part of the land

Held: The appellants were not able to produce any document giving them a proper title to the land. None of the grounds of appeal had any merit. The evidence adduced before the trial judge was such that he could have conducted with justification that there was no proof of possession by the heirs of Victoria Richardson, neither was there adverse possession over a period of time or land and uninterrupted possession save that was allowed them by the respective owners.

Held: The appellants were not able to produce any document giving them a proper title to the land. None of the grounds of appeal had any merit. The evidence adduced before the trial judge was such that he could have conducted with justification that there was no proof of possession by the heirs of Victoria Richardson, neither was there adverse possession over a period of time or land and uninterrupted possession save that was allowed them by the respective owners.

1 Bishop, J.A..: This is an appeal by the heirs of Victoria Richardson represented by Walter Rey against the decision of the High Court Judge in which he shared the finding of the Adjudication Officer and granted absolute title to a part of Mt. Pleasant Estate, to the Commissioner for the Crown.

2 The grounds of appeal are as follows:

• (1) The finding of the learned trial judge that part of the land occupied by the appellants was Mount Pleasant Estate is unreasonable having regard to the evidence.

• (2) The findings of fact by the learned trial judge in regard to the boundaries of Mount Pleasant Estate are unreasonable and against the weight of evidence.

• (3) The learned trial judge erred in law in finding that the appellants could not obtain title by adverse possession to any part of Mount Pleasant Estate.

• (4) The finding of the judge that the arrangement made by Carter Rey with members of his family when he placed them in possession of the lands at Mount Pleasant Estate which they claimed by long possession might be termed “a kind of” family arrangement so that their worked lands through the years would not entitle them to base a claim for adverse possession is not based on any evidence in the case and/or is contrary to the weight of the evidence in the case.

• (5) The finding of the judge that as long as Carter Rey held a Power of Attorney over Mount Pleasant Estate the appellant'sclaim to any part of Mount Pleasant Estate could not be adverse is wrong in law and in fact.

3 The appellants have asked that this court set aside the judgment of the trial judge and grant to them absolute title to the disputed area of land.

4 The appeal to the High Court judge from the Adjudication Officer'sdecision was by way of re-hearing and the judge heard witnesses on both sides, as if a new trial had been ordered. He also saw a plan the area and he visited the locus in quo.

5 There was evidence before the trial judge that allowed the following findings of facts:–

6 Henrietta Theresa Lake, or Etta Lake as she was better known, was the sister of Edward Carter Rey. She was married to James Louis Engalbert Lake but he predeceased her, leaving a will under which she became the owner, for the term of her natural life, of an area of land which is now the subject matter of the dispute.

7 Louise Marie Lake was the daughter of Janes and Henrietta, and on the death of Henrietta, in 1953, she was named as the owner of the land in question.

8 Edward Carter Rey and Victoria Richardson were the parents of Walter Rey, Huldena Rey, Miriam George and Vida Richardson. He died in 1943 while Victoria Richardson died in 1969.

9 Charles (also called Frank) Rey was the brother of Henrietta Lake and of Edward Carter Rey. Henrietta Lake became the owner of the land around 1890, and thereafter she put her brother Edward Carter Rey in charge of it — probably because she was more often absent from than resident in Anguilla. She did so by a power of attorney, dated 23rd January 1904, whereby he was appointed to be true, certain and lawful attorney generally to act and perform all matters and things requisite and necessary” in and touching all of her property and properties, real and personal in Anguilla. He was further empowered to act as fully and effectually as she might or could do if she were present personally. That power of attorney remained valid and unrevoked throughout Edward Rey'slife time and he and his family, including Walter Rey and Huldena Ray and their mother Victoria Richardson, occupied and managed the land of which he had been put in charge. They cultivated part of it, grazed cattle and goats and cut wood to make charcoal. Edward Rey'sauthority under the power of attorney ceased when he died in 1943; and thereafter Henrietta Lake allowed her brother Charles (or Frank) to manage the same land. He did so until Henrietta'sdeath in 1953.

10 From the time she acquired the land under her former husband'swill until her death, Henrietta Lake retained and never relinquished possession. After her death, her daughter Marie Lake became owner of the land and she allowed Charles (or Frank) to continue to manage and take charge of it.

11 Marie Lake remained owner until she sold the land in 1954 to tree then Government of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla and that Government occupied and put the land to use renting 78 acres to several tenants from around 1956 and cultivating pangola grass for the communal grazing of animals, for which there was a charge per day for each animal, from about 1964 until 1967. In about 1967 the Government did some clearing of the land for the purpose of improving the airstrip that existed. In 1973 the Government performed further acts of ownership directed at airport extension.

12 The evidence before the trial judge showed too that the heirs of Victoria Richardson laid claim to the said area of land on the basis that it belonged to their father Edward Carter Ray and that he allowed Victoria Richardson to use it as she wished. They claimed that their father told them or some of them from as early as 1910 that it was his land (or their land), and he took them over it pointing out its boundaries. After he died in 1943, they occupied and cultivated it and in the early 1960'sthe Rays (Walter and Huldena) leased a part of it to Jeremiah Gumbs for use as a landing strip and for erection of an aeroplane hangar. In 1967, they claimed, the Government intruded by clearing part of the land and inserting pegs of demarcation but along with Victoria Richardson they continued to occupy it until her death in 1969. After her death Walter Rey and Huldena Rey continued in occupation cultivating and raising animals on the land, but in 1973 the Government entered upon the land, pushed down a building, and when they — the Reys — tried to resist they were arrested and charged in court.

13 Neither of the heirs of Victoria Richardson was able to produce any document giving them or any of them a proper or any title to the land.

14 Having seen and heard the several persons, having seen the plans and other exhibits produced in evidence, and having visited the land in question, the trial judge decided thus:

“The boundaries given by both sides are in dispute and the documents of title do not assist. There is greater difficulty in ascertaining the western boundary than the other boundaries. The Reys contend...