Leiba v Thompson

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Harrison, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 July 1992
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: C.L. L.057 of 1988
• Date: 29 July 1992

Supreme Court

Harrison, J. (Ag.)

C.L. L.057 of 1988

Leiba

and

Thompson

Appearances:

Messrs D. Morrison and P. Foster instructed by Dunn Cox & Orrett for the plaintiff.

Mr. Norman Davis instructed by Myers Fletcher & Gordon for the defendant.

Contract - Sale of Land — Contract for the sale of land entered into between defendants and plaintiff — Plaintiff entered into possession of property — Tenants in common — Original contractor/administrator failed to complete transaction — Plaintiff sued — Claim for breach of contract failed as defendants had no power to enter into contract without the parties who held the property as tenants in common — Contract is therefore not specifically enforceable — Adverse possession must be established against true owners of property — Tenants in common have limited possessions which must be claimed and established against all tenants in common — Plaintiff's claim failed.

1 Harrison, J. (AG.): On July 29th, 1992, judgment was entered in favour of the defendant. I indicated then that my reasons would be reduced to writing at a later date. This is a fulfilment of the Court's promise.

FACTS

2 A contract for the sale of ³/₄ acre of land was entered into between the plaintiff and Hubert Leston Thompson on the 11th day of September, 1968. The land was owned by the said Hubert Leston Thompson and the defendant as tenants in common but the consent of the defendant was not obtained at the time of the contract of sale.

3 The plaintiff was put into possession in October 1968. He fenced the land and erected a billboard sign advertising a proposed housing development. Subdivision approval for the land was eventually obtained in September, 1975.

4 Hubert Thompson died in 1973 and in November 1981, the defendant was granted Letters of Administration in his estate.

5 The defendant Administrator of the estate of Hubert Thompson failed to complete the contract of sale hence suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant personally and as Administrator claiming inter alia:–

• (a) Specific Performance of an agreement for the sale of land.

• (b) Damages for breach of contract.

• (c) A declaration that the plaintiff had acquired title to the land by way of adverse possession.

6 At the close of the plaintiff's case the defendant made a no case submission. The gist of this submission was as follows:–

1

The agreement for sale between the plaintiff and Hubert Thompson was not a valid enforceable agreement because the defendant as co-owner of the land was not a party to this contract. (Refers to Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn Vol. 39 para. 547; Cheshire's Modern Law of Real Property 5th Edn. para. 559). 2. If there was a valid agreement a claim for damages for breach would be barred by the Limitation of Actions Act. (Refers to English Empire Digest 1978 Re-issue p. 749; Chitty on Contracts, General Principles 24th Edn. p. 809-810 para. 1702; East Indian Co. v. Oditcharn Paul(1850) 7, 1700 P.C.C. 85). 3. The claim for specific performance was barred by laches and for abandonment of the parties. (Refers to Stoneham on ‘Vendor and Purchaser’ p. 715-718, 777-779; Levy v. Stogdon(1898) ICLD 478). 4. The claim for adverse possession against the defendant in his personal capacity cannot stand alone. (Refers to Archer v. Georgiana Holdings Ltd.; (1974) 21 W.I.R 431; George Beckford v. Gloria Cumper S.C.C.A.38/86 12.6.87.).

7 Mr. Davis concluded that since the claims against the defendant as Administrator and in his personal capacity, have not been proved, the defendant in both capacities would be entitled to judgment.

8 The response by Mr. Morrison to this submission can be summarised as follows:–

• (a) The plaintiff was entitled to an order decreeing specific performance of the agreement for sale against the Administrator of the estate of Hubert Thompson with regard to his undivided share of the property. (Refers to Horrocks v. Rigby (1878) 9 Ch. D.180; Basma v. Weekes [1950] 2 All E.R. 146).

• (b) As at date of the contract the plaintiff had become the beneficial owner in equity of the undivided half share of Hubert Thompson with the result that both the plaintiff and defendant became tenants in common.

• (c) From the moment the plaintiff executed the agreement for sale and was put into possession of the property time began to run against the whole world and in particular against the defendant in his personal capacity. Further, that the defendant's right to the property in his persons capacity had been extinguished by adverse possession. (Refers to Paradise Beach & Transportation Co. Ltd v. Robinson [1968] 1 All E.R. 530).

• (d) That it was not open to the defendant not having made time of the essence to insert an arbitrary date for completion of the sale. (Refers to “Snell's Principles of Equity” 28th Edn. para. 6).

• (e) The delay in pursuing its claim will not ordinarily be a bar to one such as the plaintiff who has been let into possession under the contract and has obtains an equitable interest. (Refers to Williams v. Greatrex [1956] 3 All E.R. 705 p. 708, 709).

9 A BREACH OF CONTRACT

10 In the instant case, Hubert Thompson purported to sell the entire property...