Sinclair v Allen

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Duffus, P.,Lewis, J.,Henriques, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1963
• Neutral Citation: JM 1963 CA 22
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No.68 of 1963
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 01 January 1963

Court of Appeal

Duffus, P.; Lewis, J.; Henriques, J.

Civil Appeal No.68 of 1963

Sinclair

and

Allen

Appearances

Mr.Norman Hill for the defendant/appellant

Mr.McFarlane for the plaintiff/respondent

Real Property - Landlord and tenant — Repairs

JUDGMENT:

1 The appellant rented a house at Adelphi in the parish of St. James to the respondent at an agreed rental or £12 per month. The respondent is a Doctor and he required the premises for use as surgery. The building was in need of repairs and painting. It was not wired for electricity and had no plumbing fixtures or water supply. The parties came to an oral agreement regarding the various things to be done and the respondent entered into possession. Unfortunately the agreement was not reduced into writing and a dispute arose between the parties which resulted in the respondent suing the appellant for £48.10/-.The appellant counterclaimed for £50.6.8. The learned Acting Resident Magistrate for St. James who heard the matter gave judgment for the respondent on his claim for £44.10/ - with costs £16.16/- and judgment for the appellant on hercounterclaim for £14.18/- with costs £16.16/- there being final judgment for the respondent for £29.12/-.

2 It is against this judgment that the appellant appeals.

3 There were several grounds of appeal but learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the findings of the learned Resident Magistrate were based mainly on issues of fat which there was evidence to support and in the circumstance he proposed confining his submissions to only two of the issues involved.

4 He submitted: -

1

That the award of £16 to the respondent for painting the house was unreasonable as this had not in fact been proved with any certainty by the respondent; and 1. That the learned Resident Magistrate was wrong to have disallowed the sum of £18 claimed by the appellant for loss of one month's rental, and that at the very least the respondent was entitled to £12 (a month's rental at the agreed rate) on the finding of the learned Resident Magistrate that the removal of the tenants fixtures by the respondent had left unpainted areas which required painting.

5 1. It was respondent's case that he had been asked by the appellant to get a painter to do the necessary painting to the interior of the building and that she would reimburse him. He said that he had employed the painter, one Kenneth Gordon, who had done the work and he paid him £16 cash for which he got a receipt.

6 It was the appellant's case that she had employed Gordon, who did the painting on her instructions before the respondent moved in and that she had paid him £25 for painting the entire house, exterior as well as interior.

7 Neither party called Gordon as a witness. The appellant tendered in evidence the receipt, which she said Gordon had given her for the £25 she had paid him and under cross-examination by the respondent's solicitor she identified Gordon's signature on the respondent's receipt form Gordon for £16, which the respondent said he had paid.

8 The learned Resident Magistrate, faced with this conflicting evidence, decided to accept the...