Melbourne (Burchell) v Anderson (Thomas) and another

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: PANTON, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 11 April 2003
• Neutral Citation: JM 2003 CA 17
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 4 JJC 1110
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 11 April 2003

JAMAICA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BEFORE:

THE HON. MR. JUSTICE FORTE, P THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BINGHAM, J.A THE HON. MR. JUSTICE PANTON, J.A

BETWEEN

BURCHELL MELBOURNE

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AND

THOMAS ANDERSON

GERTRUDE ANDERSON

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

Raphael Codlin instructed by Raphael Codlin & Co for Appellant

Jacqueline Samuels-Brown instructed by Yvonne Ridguard for the respondents

REAL PROPERTY - Recovery of possession - Whether Resident Magistrate had jurisdiction at trial of a counterclaim for sum above $250,000.00

PANTON, J.A.

1 1. On June 3, 2002, His Honour Mr. Bertram Morrison the Resident Magistrate for the parish of Portland entered judgement in this matter in favour of the respondent on the claim and the counterclaim. The claim was for the recovery of possession of land at Whydah, St. Margaret's Bay, Portland, whereas the counterclaim was for -

• (a) a declaration that the respondent had encouraged and acquiesced in the appellant's acts of improving and expending money on the said land on the understanding that the term of the tenancy would have been renewed;

• (b) damages for breach of contract;

• (c) an injunction to prevent any steps aimed at recovering possession; and

• (d) further, or in the alternative, compensation in the sum of $725,247.57 for improvements to and expenditure on the said land.

2 2. The learned Resident Magistrate found that the appellant had entered into a lease agreement at $40,000 per annum with a provision that he was not to destroy fruit trees or dump the property. The annual payment was increased to $60,000. The appellant did unauthorized extensions to the building, erected a shed without authorization and also did unauthorized dumping of the property. The Resident Magistrate also found that the so-called improvement was neither sanctioned nor necessary. In making these findings the learned Resident Magistrate was particularly impressed and influenced by the "refreshing lucidity candor and forthrightness" of the second respondent, Mrs. Gertrude Anderson.

3 3. The appellant filed twelve grounds of appeal. However, when Mr. Raphael Codlin rose to his feet before us, he abandoned all grounds except the tenth. On the completion of the arguments on February 19, 2003, we dismissed the appeal, affirmed the Resident Magistrate's order, and awarded costs of $15,000 to the respondents. These are the reasons for our decision.

4 4. The tenth ground reads:

"That the learned Resident Magistrate had no jurisdiction at the trial of a counterclaim for any sum over $250,000".

5 Mr. Codlin, in concentrating his energies on this ground, conceded that, on the claim, there was evidence on which the Resident Magistrate could have made a finding in respect of possession. Learned counsel did not think that the cause of justice would have been served by attempting to "belabour technicalities". He therefore asked the court to consider only the question of the Resident Magistrate's jurisdiction to try the counterclaim, given the quantum claimed in paragraph (d) above.

6 It bears noting that the appellant was thereby challenging the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate to hear and determine the very counterclaim that he the...