Bancroft Brown v Daveton Williams
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Jackson-Haisley, J. (AG.) |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] JMSC Civ 192 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. 2011 HCV 01127 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Date | 04 November 2016 |
[2016] JMSC Civ 192
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
CIVIL DIVISION
Jackson-Haisley, J. (AG.)
CLAIM NO. 2011 HCV 01127
Mr. Donovan Williams instructed by Mr. Sylvester C. Morris for the Claimant
Mr. Garth Taylor for the Defendants
Recovery of possession — Sections 68, 70, 71 Registration of Titles Act — Fraud — Purchaser for Value Without Notice — Beneficiaries Under Will — Letters of Administration — Legal and Equitable Interest.
The value of land in Jamaica cannot be overestimated. The means by which land can be acquired is quite varied, some acquire it by purchase, some by gift and others through a devise in a will. Regardless of the means by which it is acquired its value is undeniable. Proof of ownership is a necessary facet to establishing the right to possession. Under the system of land registration that operates in Jamaica a registered title is proof to the world of ownership of a property.
The Claimant Bancroft Brown alleges that he is the registered owner of property located at 31A Riverside Drive, Kingston 19 in the parish of Saint Andrew and that he acquired this land with dwelling house thereon through a cash purchase from Joan Brown-Grant. He further alleges that having served a notice to quit on the Defendants from as far back as 2011, he is still without the benefit of this property.
The Defendants are all siblings. They are Daveton, Dean, Luke, Debbie and Andy Williams and have remained in possession of this property despite being served with a notice to quit. This is because they believe that they are entitled to remain on this property as they are the beneficiaries of an interest in the property bequeathed to them by way of the Last Will and Testament of their late grandmother Sylvia Brown. They are also seeking to assert their rights to this property by way of a counterclaim.
This Claim herein is one primarily for recovery of possession of premises located at Havendale in the parish of St. Andrew. By way of Claim Form filed March 11, 2011 Mr. Bancroft Brown claims the following:
- An Order that the Defendants, DAVETON WILLIAMS, DEAN WILLIAMS, LUKE WILLIAMS, DEBBIE WILLIAMS AND ANDY WILLIAMS all of 31A Riverside Drive, Kingston 19 in the parish of Saint Andrew are in unlawful possession of the said property despite being given a proper notice to quit by the Claimant; 2. An Order that during the currency of this matter and until the Court makes a final determination with regard to the Order for possession the Defendants do pay the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.00) into an interest bearing account at the Bank of Nova Scotia Jamaica Limited. The said account to be maintained in the joint names of the Claimant's and the Defendant's Attorney-at-Law and there is to be no withdrawal therefrom; 3. An Order restraining the Defendants, their agents and/or servants and/or any person under the direction or instruction of the Defendants or any or all of the Defendants from undertaking any act which shall cause damage to the property during the currency of these proceedings and until the Court shall finally dispose of this matter; 4. Damages; 5. Mesne Profits; 6. Interest at such rate and for such period as this Honourable Court shall think fit; 7. Costs and Attorneys' costs; 8. Such further or other relief and order as this Honourable Court shall think fit.
The Orders sought at paragraphs 2 and 3 were not pursued at the trial of the matter.
The Claim Form is accompanied by a Particulars of Claim in which the Claimant indicates that at all material times he is the registered proprietor of property located at 31A Riverside Drive, Kingston 19 in the parish of Saint Andrew and that at all material times he purchased the property from Joan Brown-Grant, Administratrix of the Estate of Sylvia Brown. The Defendants, he indicates, are all in unlawful possession of the said property despite being given a proper notice to quit by the Claimant. He pleads that the Defendants are not entitled to the property and have no interest in the said property in the face of the clear endorsement of his name on the Certificate of Title registered at Volume 1075 Folio 527.
By way of evidence gleaned from his witness statement and testimony in court the Claimant outlines the circumstances under which he came to purchase the property. According to him, he received information from a real estate agent that the property was up for sale and then he made enquiries as to the sale price and was informed that it was $6,000,000.00 and so he made arrangements to purchase it. He indicated that he subsequently entered into an agreement for sale through attorney-at-law Mr. Kevin Williams, following which he paid a deposit and subsequently the balance purchase price, as a result of which the property was transferred to him on the 22 nd day of November 2010 and his name registered on the title. He indicated that he did not know the vendor Joan Brown- Grant or any of the Defendants before he purchased the property and denies being related to her in any way either by family or otherwise. He also denies being related to the Defendants.
Further, contrary to what has been alleged by the Defendants, he said that he was not present when any Will was destroyed and therefore he had no knowledge of any Will which devised said property to the Defendants. In fact he alleged that he saw the Defendants for the first time when he took a police officer to visit the premises and advise them to vacate same. Further, that it was through the attorney-at-law with conduct of the sale that he found out that the vendor was the daughter of Sylvia Brown, deceased and that she was the Administratrix of her mother's estate. According to him he had no knowledge that the property was left for the benefit of the Defendants. He denies the allegations of fraud and avers that he was not a party to any fraud.
As a result of his failure to gain possession of the premises and because of the continued occupation of the premises by the Defendants he indicates that he has had to pay rent of $60,000.00 per month and has been deprived of the chance to rent the premises and obtain any other economic benefits.
He was subject to cross-examination during which other bits of evidence were elicited. He pointed out that he had first been to the premises in around 2009 to view it but did not enter the premises. His plan, he expressed, was to renovate it so he wasn't so concerned about what was inside but rather its potential based on its location and size. When asked about his relationship with the vendor he insisted that he had no prior relationship with her or with the Defendants and that he did not know them and wasn't related to them and also that he was never present when any Will was allegedly destroyed. He said he found the suggestions made almost ridiculous.
He asserted that he was initially of the impression that he would have been given vacant possession and was promised that the persons in occupation would have vacated when the sale was completed. He indicated that he commenced the matter of recovery of possession of the premises in the Sutton Street Resident Magistrate's Court on the 3 rd February 2011.
It was suggested to him that whilst the transaction was proceeding he did not want the occupants of the premises to be aware of it. He pointed out that that was not his business and it had nothing to do with any fear on his part that they would jeopardize the sale. He strenuously resisted all suggestions put to him about any impropriety or fraud on his part or of him having any knowledge thereof.
In the Amended Defence filed on the 21 st October, 2016 the Defendants set out the circumstances under which they are resisting this claim. They plead that even if the Claimant's name is reflected on the Certificate of Title, he is not the lawful proprietor of either the legal or equitable interest thereof because the title was obtained by the Claimant as a result of fraud. They alleged that the Grant of Administration ad Colligenda Bona was of a limited nature and doesn't allow the Administratrix to lawfully dispose of the said property so the Claimant does not own the legal and equitable interest in the property because it was sold to him pursuant to this limited Grant of Administration. They asserted that since the Administratrix held the equitable interest on trust for the beneficiaries of the estate of Sylvia Brown then the property is held on trust by the Claimant for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Further, that in all the circumstances the sale itself along with the Administratrix's knowledge of the limited Grant constitutes a part of the fraud.
Although the Defendants have been served with a notice to quit they are of the view that it is not valid because the property was devised to them by their late grandmother Sylvia Brown in her Last Will and Testament. The Defendants alleged further that the Claimant is a relative of theirs and so he knew the Grant was limited, moreover he knew that the late Sylvia Brown devised the property by Will to the Defendants who are her grandchildren. Further, that any Grant of Administration obtained by the said Joan Brown-Grant in relation to the estate of the deceased Sylvia Brown was obtained by fraud because the will of Sylvia Brown was torn up by Joan Brown-Grant in the presence of and encouraged by the Claimant. The Defendants maintain that as a result, their possession is lawful and they are entitled to ignore the notice to quit. They deny that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought and allege that he is not a bona fide party in the transaction and was at all material times...
To continue reading
Request your trial