Terrence Webster v Boyston Sorton et Al

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Moise, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 July 2024
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2024] ECSC J0730-4
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO: AXAHCV2023/0014
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Year: 2024

Between:

Terrence Webster

Appellant

and

1. Boyston Sorton

2. The Registrar of Lands

Respondents

Before:

His Lordship The Honourable Justice Ermin Moise

CLAIM NO: AXAHCV2023/0014

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Ms. Kimberly O'Meally of counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Michael Bourne of counsel for the 1 ^st Respondent.

Moise, J.

1 This is an appeal against the decision of the Registrar of Lands delivered on 1 ^st March, 2023. In her decision, the learned registrar dismissed the appellant's application for title by prescription to a parcel of land registered as Section East Central Block 89319B Parcel 85 in the Land Registry of Anguilla. I have decided that the appeal should be allowed, and the appellant is entitled to a declaration that he has acquired ownership of the premises by prescription and is entitled to the registration of his title. These are the reasons for my decision.

The Facts

2 By way of hand-written note, In August 1980, Ms. Venetia Hodge gifted to Mr. Terrence Webster (Mr. Webster) a shop which she operated on Section East Central Block 89319B Parcel 85 (the property). Ms. Hodge was Mr. Webster's aunt and the then owner and operator of the shop in question. She was however not the registered proprietor of the land. Ms. Venetia Hodge had herself been given ownership of the building in which the shop was operated in August 1969, by her brother Mr. Samual Austin Hodge, who was then the registered proprietor of the property. The shop was described in this handwritten note as a “shop like house … bounded to the west of Peter Hodge's property”. There appears to be very little doubt that Ms. Hodge did not own the land on which the building was located and that what had been gifted to Mr. Webster was this building in which the shop was contained.

3 Mr. Webster states that, although he had previously been given the shop, shortly after the passage of Hurricane Luis in 1995, he repaired the building, installed a concrete roof, changed the windows, added on a porch, bathroom, bedroom and made the building habitable. The building on the property now measured approximately 20 feet wide by 29 feet long. At the time he had been given this shop in 1980, the building was only 14 feet wide and 29 feet long. He therefore expanded on the building. Mr. Webster was not given permission to do any of this by anyone. He was also not given any permission to extend on this house by the registered proprietor at the time. Mr. Webster subsequently rented out the building to different people between the years 1996 to 1999.

4 In 1999, Mr. Webster undertook further alterations and repairs to the building. He renovated and converted the building for use specifically as a residence. He supplemented the cistern and planted coconut and grape trees on the land, as well as other plants on the property. Mr. Webster used a cleared-out area of the property, close to a coconut grove, to park boats for more than 15 years. He claims that he has occupied the property as a residence since completion of the renovations for approximately 20 years. By my own calculation, it would mean that by the time of the decision of the registrar, Mr. Webster had been in occupation of the premises for approximately 24 years after these renovations in 1999, and even longer if one considers the initial renovations in 1995. Mr. Webster also states that he paid property taxes to the government and obtained a connection from ANGLEC for the supply of electricity to the premises. He presented receipts of these payments, at least from the year 2015. He paid rent to no one and was not disturbed in his possession of the premises in any way.

5 I pause at this stage in the evidence to note that these assertions made by Mr. Webster are not controverted. In fact, the registrar in her own findings in the hearing before her accepted this to be true and, at paragraphs 39 to 42 of her decision, determined that Mr. Webster had been in factual possession with the requisite intention to possess as owner. For reasons which I will explain later on, I am of the view that the registrar was correct in that determination.

6 Mr. Webster states, in his affidavit, that sometime in 2015 he visited Mr. Boyston Sorton in St. Martin where he resided. Mr. Sorton was then the registered proprietor of the property. Mr. Webster stated that he visited Mr. Sorton only after having been served with a letter from the bailiff on behalf of Mr. Sorton. This letter requested vacant possession from the occupant of the premises. Mr. Webster did not vacate. He visited Mr. Sorton in Saint Martin and introduced himself. Mr. Webster's evidence was that he informed Mr. Sorton that the house was gifted to him by his aunt. He states in his statutory declaration that although he was then aware that Mr. Sorton was the registered proprietor, he was living on the land for longer than the statutory period required to claim adverse possession. He denies ever offering to purchase the land from Mr. Sorton but indicated that he did take a document over to Mr. Sorton to have the property transferred to him. It was Mr. Webster's evidence that by the time he took this document over to Saint Martin he had already met the requirements for adverse possession and that he was advised by one Noreen that this was a way of getting the property registered in his name.

7 Mr. Sorton's evidence in this case was that his late uncle, Mr. Samual Austin Hodge, was the executor in the estate of Mr. Peter Hodge. I gather from the evidence that Peter Hodge was the initial owner of the land in question. According to Mr. Sorton, sometime in the 1980s Mr. Samuel Austin Hodge became the registered proprietor. Title to the property was eventually passed to Mr. Sorton's mother. Mr. Sorton himself became the registered proprietor of the land in 1998. His evidence was that, as far as he can recall, Mr. Webster did not begin using this shop until 1997. He recalls his aunt requesting permission to allow Mr. Webster use of the shop. Since Mr. Webster was a relative, Mr. Sorton states that he had no objections to this.

8 Mr. Sorton did not reside in Anguilla. Rather, he lived in Saint Martin. He states in his evidence that he would visit Anguilla regularly and would visit the property. During those visits he never saw Mr. Webster but was aware that Mr. Webster had rented the shop. He states that Mr. Webster was living between the Dominican Republic and The United Kingdom at the time. This is a fact which Mr. Webster denies.

9 Mr. Sorton stated in his affidavit that sometime between 1998 and 2000, Mr. Webster visited him in Saint Martin. He states that Mr. Webster showed him a copy of a document signed by his late aunt in which she granted permission to use the shop. Mr. Webster then stated that Ms. Venetia Hodge wanted him to have the shop. It was Mr. Sorton's evidence that Mr. Webster then presented him with a document requesting that he convey the property to him. Mr. Sorton stated that he informed Mr. Webster that he could not simply transfer title to property which was in his name to Mr. Webster. He refused to sign the document. He states that Mr. Webster then informed him that he had planted coconut trees on the land and wanted to be paid $70,000.00 for them. Mr. Sorton refused. Mr. Sorton stated that he told Mr. Webster that he was welcome to continue using the land until he was ready for it.

10 At this stage it is important to address a few issues which emerge from Mr. Sorton's evidence. In his affidavit, he described this encounter with Mr. Webster as having occurred sometime between 1998 and 2000. However, having examined the evidence and hearing both parties at trial, I find that, in fact, this encounter took place in 2015. During his oral testimony, Mr. Sorton himself described this year as the period within which this conversation took place. I also note that at the time of the hearing before the learned registrar, Mr. Webster had presented independent witnesses to verify his occupation of the land. As I stated before, the registrar was satisfied that Mr. Webster had met the requisite test for occupation of the property as contained in the law. I will address the law later on, but it is worth repeating that I see no reason to disturb this finding and I have come to the same conclusion myself.

11 On the specific issue of this encounter in Saint Martin, Mr. Webster was thoroughly cross examined in the trial before me. He accepted that prior to travelling to Saint Martin to meet with Mr. Sorton, he had been given a document which was prepared by someone by the name of Noreen. Noreen apparently worked at the Land Registry. It appears from the evidence and cross examination that this document was a conveyance which Mr. Webster had taken to Mr. Sorton to sign. It was his evidence, in cross examination, that he was not aware of what was contained in the document. In cross examination Mr. Webster denied that he had been to visit Noreen in order to seek advice on getting the property in his name. He states that Noreen gave him the document but didn't explain to him what it was. He also denied giving evidence before the registrar to the effect that he had visited Noreen with a view to getting advice on how to get this property in his name. Despite Mr. Webster's denial of that fact, he stated otherwise in his own affidavit. I find therefore as a matter of fact that Mr. Webster did communicate with Noreen from the Land Registry and that this communication was to seek advice on how to get this property registered in his name.

12 Notwithstanding this, in my view, regardless of the motive for visiting Noreen, it appears quite clear to me that Mr. Webster was embarking on a course to acquire title to the property he had at the very least, adversely possessed from the year 1995 when he renovated the building without permission and began...