Sylvanie Connor Keithley Hodge (as Administrators in the Estate of Albert Alfred Hodge, deceased) v Ileen Hodge-richardson (Administrator of the Estate of Albert Hodge, deceased)
| Jurisdiction | Anguilla |
| Judge | BLENMAN, J |
| Judgment Date | 30 October 2010 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2010] ECSC J1030-2 |
| Date | 30 October 2010 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. AXAHCV 0043/2008 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CLAIM NO. AXAHCV 0043/2008
Ms. Jenny Lindsay for the Applicant/Defendant
Ms. Navine Fleming for the Respondents/Claimants
This is an application by Ms. Ileen Hodge-Richardson in which she seeks to have the court restrain Ms. Sylvanie Connor and Mr. Keithley Hodge from trespassing on Parcel 201 of Registration Section West End, Block 18011B. She also seeks a number of injunctive reliefs against them, including preventing them from abusing, cursing, harassing or threatening her.
The application for injunctive reliefs is opposed by both Sylvanie and Keithley.
This application comes in the face of a series of long court actions between the parties. It bears nothing that Ileen, Keithley and Sylvanie Connor are all siblings. They are the children of Alfred Albert Hodge, deceased.
Apparently, Mr. Alfred Hodge died intestate, leaving thirteen children surviving him. He was a man who owned substantial land.
It appears as though Letters of Administration of his estate was granted first to Ileen and then to Sylvanie and Keithley on the 9 th day of April 2003, but the Estate of Albert Hodge has not been vested.
There are allegations that Mr. Alfred Hodge's lands are situate at Registration Section West End, Block 18011B, Parcels 201–203 and Registration Section West Central, Block 28010B, Parcel 13. Ms. Ileen Hodge-Richardson disputes the correctness of this and says that Parcel 201 does not form part of Albert Hodge's estate.
Ileen made several allegations of threats, intimidation against her and trespass on her property.
It seems as though Keithley and another sibling built their homes on a portion of Block 18011B before the subdivision or transfer was completed. Mr. Albert Hodge's (deceased) property therefore remains undivided.
In her application, Ileen seeks to have the court restrain Sylvanie and keithley from entering physically and/or by vehicle or trucks or by any other means on the entire area of Registration Section West End, Block 18011B, Parcel 201. She also seeks an order to prevent them vandalizing, destroying, cutting, chopping, clipping or otherwise removing plants or trees she has planted.
The application for injunctive reliefs is strenuously opposed by Sylvanie and Keithley.
The issue that arises for the court to resolve is whether the court should grant Ileen the injunctive reliefs that she seeks.
Learned Counsel, Ms. Fleming referred the court to Sylvanie Connor's affidavit filed in opposition. Sylvanie contends that Parcel 201 is part of her father's Albert Hodge's Estate. In her affidavit, Sylvanie further, that herself and the other siblings have no difficulty with the applicant occupying Parcel 201 as part of their father Albert Hodge's Estate. She denies that Parcel 201 belonged to Uncle Aus. Sylvanie said that what she and her brother have continued to do is to use the footpath which runs alongside Parcel 201.
Sylvanie has not in her Affidavit denied the allegations made by Ileen about Keithley abusing her and cutting down the trees and plants on Parcel 201. However, Sylvanie stated it is because of Ileen's refusal to conclude the Administration of their father's Estate, which would give each beneficiary their just share that has caused all of the confusion which Ileen alleges.
Ms. Fleming, Learned Counsel, stated that at this stage of the proceedings when the court could not be sure which of the parties was likely to succeed at the trial, the court should determine where the balance of convenience lies. Counsel referred the court to the affidavit that was deposed to Sylvanie on her own behalf and that of Keithley.
Ms. Fleming, Learned Counsel, urged the court not to grant Ileen the injunctive relief that she seeks to restrain Keithley from using the footpath; if the court were to do so, it would cause him great inconvenience since he would not be able to access his boat. Further, Ms. Fleming asked the court not to grant the injunctive relief that she seeks to restrain Keithley from using Parcel 201 to gain access to the beach by the use of a motor vehicle.
Ms. Fleming, Learned Counsel referred the court to the photographs which are exhibits in the matter. Counsel said that where Keithley uses, is to the edge of the wall and is nowhere near to Ileen's house. Ms. Fleming stated that Ileen's house is far from the path that Keithley takes to access the beach. Even though he is accessing the beach by vehicle over Parcel 201, it would in no way disturb Ileen, nor is he trespassing on the portion of Parcel 201 on which Ileen's house is situate. Ileen's house is above the footpath.
Ms. Fleming urged the court to make an order that has the effect of maintaining the status quo by allowing Keithley to continue to use the path in order to get to his boat. Learned Counsel referred the court to Godfrey Croft v Joseph Horsford a decision of this court, in support of her arguments.
In concluding her submissions, Learned Counsel, Ms. Fleming indicated that Keithley was prepared to give an undertaking not to threaten, harass or abuse Ileen.
Learned Counsel, Ms. Lindsay told the court that Ileen maintains that Parcel 201 was given to her by her paternal Uncle Aus and formed no part of her father Albert Hodge's Estate.
The controversy surround what Ileen refers to as her garden and Sylvanie and Keithley say that it is a footpath, which they have used since they were children to go to the beach. Ileen has exhibited photographs of the property to indicate to the court the area over which Keithley drives his motor vehicle.
Ms. Lindsay said that Ileen denies that Parcel 201 is part of the Estate of Albert. She maintains that it was given to her by her deceased Uncle Aus and does not form part of Albert Estate. More importantly, Ileen says that having received Parcel 201 from her Uncle Aus, she and her husband expended substantial sums of money to construct their home on the land. She has been in possession of the land for in excess of 16 years.
Learned Counsel, Ms. Lindsay reminded the court that, in her affidavit deposed to on 7 th April 2010, Ileen complains about a number of things that Keithley allegedly did from as far back as August 2009, October 2009 and November 2009. Most of them are, in effect, complaints of destruction to plants, trees, digging up walls, driving through the gardens and abusing her.
Ileen said that she planted flowers and plants in her garden and that Keithley has cut them down in order to be able to drive through her garden to access the beach.
Ileen's major complaint is that over the last two weeks, on a daily basis, Keithley has driven through her land with an entourage of friends, driving trucks and cars through her garden and lawn to get to the beach instead of using the road leading to the beach. He has recently put a small boat in the area. They appear to be going back and forth to the small boat.
Ms. Lindsay asks the court to accept that Keithley has threatened, harassed and abused Ileen. He has also intimidated her; this conduct requires the court imposing restraint on Keithley. Learned Counsel stated that Keithley has not sought to deny the clear allegations made by Ileen in relation to his reprehensible and unwanted behaviour.
Next, Ms. Lindsay argued that Keithley has trespassed on Ileen's land namely: Parcel 201; that he has destroyed the plants and trees on Parcel 201. Learned Counsel relied on the cases of Clarabell Investments Limited v Antigua Isle Company, Antigua Claim No. 0326/2006 Antigua and Barbuda together with that of Michael v Hutchinson's. Claim No. 0298/2004.
Learned Counsel, Ms. Lindsay urged the court to grant Ileen the injunctive reliefs sought. Ms. Lindsay, Learned Counsel, reminded the court that it is a trespass to place or do anything on land which is in the possession of another. It is law that there is no need to prove actual damage. Ms. Lindsay said that the applicant has made out a case for trespass.
Ms. Lindsay said that the allegations are not in dispute. Ms. Lindsay says that the allegations are admitted with unreasonable and unjustifiable attempts by Sylvanie to defend the blatant breaches that have been complained of.
Ms. Lindsay asked the court to make an order to prevent both Sylvanie and Keithley by themselves, their servants or agents from entering Parcel 201, either by foot or by truck. They should also be restrained from vandalising, destroying, killing or cutting the trees, plants, grass and flowers on Parcel 201. Further, she says that the court should grant Ileen the injunction to restrain Keithley and Sylvanie from vandalizing, destroying, cutting, chopping, clipping or otherwise removing part of the building's retaining wall.
Learned Counsel, Ms. Lindsay requested the court to restrain Keithley from passing over Parcel 201. She said that there is no right-of-way over Parcel 201 and it was only when Keithley and others cut the foot path that an access to the beach was created. Ms. Lindsay says that the court ought to grant the injunction to Ileen who is living on the land and is in possession of the land.
Learned Counsel, Ms. Lindsay reminded the court that Ileen was of advanced age. Counsel urged the court to grant the injunctions to Ileen in order to protect her from the harassment and abuse she has endured over the years. If not, restrained Keithley and others would continue to abuse and harass her.
The court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial