Sidney Hughes Appellant v Ursula Hughes (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mary Richardson, Deceased) Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: SATROHAN SINGH J.A.,SATROHAN SINGH,Justice of Appeal,C. M. DENNIS BYRON,ALBERT MATTHEW
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1998
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1998] ECSC J0602-1
• Court: Court of Appeal (Anguilla)
• Date: 02 June 1998

[1998] ECSC J0602-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice C. M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice (Ag.)

The Hon. Mr. Justice Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr Justice Albert Matthew Justice of Appeal (Ag.)

Between:

Sidney Hughes

Appellant

and

Ursula Hughes

(As Personal Representative of the Estate of Mary Richardson, Deceased)

Respondent

Appearances:

Mr. Courtney Abel, Mr Patrick Patterson with him for the Appellant

Miss Paulette Harrigan for the Respondent

SATROHAN SINGH J.A.

1 On July 31, 1995, the respondent, as personal representative of the Estate of Mary Richardson deceased, brought suit against the appellant for an order of possession with respect of lands described as Registration Section Road Block 08412B Parcel 123 of Anguilla. She also prayed for an injunctive order referable to the said property and for damages for trespass. The appellant in his defence to this claim denied the trespass and averred that he entered the land in 1983 with the permission of his father. He admitted that when he so entered, he understood that the land was undivided family property. He pleaded that he built on the land without objections from the respondent and claimed that this suit brought by the respondent was barred as a result of the respondent's acquiescence and laches.

2 Before the suit came on for hearing in December, 1996, the respondent discovered that as a result of an honest genuine mistake on her part caused by the"bungling at the Lands and Surveys Department" (as found by the judge), that at the time when the suit was filed, the disputed land was already registered in the name of its beneficial owner Orlando Richardson. Saunders J found this happened "through no fault of the (respondent) and despite Orlando Richardson's effort precisely to prevent the same."

3 The effect of this discovery left the respondent with no locus standi to maintain the claims for possession and the injunction. Standing remained only with respect to the trespass. She therefore, in order to maintain the claims for the injunction and for possession, applied to the judge for leave to join Orlando Richardson as an added plaintiff. This application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that to do so, would be to deprive him of a defence under the Limitation Acts that he would have been entitled to should Orlando Richardson decide to bring a fresh suit for possession of the disputed property.

4 Adrian Dudley Saunder J, in the exercise of his judicial discretion, granted the application and ordered that Orlando Richardson be made an added plaintiff in the suit. The appellant is dissatisfied, hence this appeal. The central issue for our determination...