Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » Dennis Bernard Doxilly v The Attorney General

    THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
    SAINT LUCIA

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    (CIVIL)

    SLUHCV2020/0200 formerly SLUHCV2019/0327

    BETWEEN:

    DENNIS BERNARD DOXILLY

    Claimant

    and

     

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

    Defendant

    Before:
    The Hon. Mde. Justice Kimberly Cenac-Phulgence High Court Judge

    Appearances:
    Mr.Vernantius James for the Claimant
    Mrs. Antonia Charlemagne with Mrs. Rochelle John-Charles for the
    Defendant

    _________________________________
    2021: May 19;
    2023: January 12.
    __________________________________

    JUDGMENT

     

    [1] CENAC-PHULGENCE J: This decision concerns a constitutional motion
    alleging breaches of the Constitution of Saint Lucia
    (“the Constitution”) filed by the claimant Mr. Dennis Doxilly (“Mr. Doxilly”) against the Attorney General of
    Saint Lucia (“the AG”). For the reasons which follow, I determined that the claim
    should be dismissed with costs to the defendant.

    [2] Mr. Doxilly, the executor named in the will of Horace Jn Pierre also known as
    Oras Jn Pierre (“Mr. Jn. Pierre”) dated 26th March 1973, obtained a grant of
    probate of the said will on 20th May 2011. Mr. Jn. Pierre died on 23rd April 1973.
    1Chap 1.01, Revised Laws of Saint Lucia.

    [3] The evidence for the claimant is contained in affidavits of Mr. Doxilly filed on 1st
    November 2019, 7th February 2020 and 10th November 2020. The evidence for
    the defendant is provided in the affidavit of Mr. John Labadie (“Mr. Labadie”),
    Chief Surveyor for Saint Lucia filed on 26th October 2020.

    [4] By his will, Mr. Jn. Pierre bequeathed all his property moveable and immovable,
    wherever situated and in whatever extent he owns in Saint Lucia to Mr. Doxilly.
    Mr. Doxilly alleges that at the time of the execution of the will, Mr. Jn. Pierre was
    entitled to (a) one half share of all the lands at Beanfield in the Vieux Fort area
    which included Pointe Sable, Tourney, Anse Noire, Black Bay, Retreate,
    Resource, Beausejour, Moreau, Sarrote, St. Urban Estates and (b) over 300
    acres of land in the Mabouya, Fond D’Or and Bois Joli areas in Dennery, Saint
    Lucia.

    [5] Mr. Doxilly claims that these lands in which he has an interest were confiscated
    by the Government of Saint Lucia (“the Government”) and to date he has not
    received any compensation. He asserts that the confiscation of his Vieux Fort
    and Dennery lands is harsh, unconstitutional and inhumane and infringes his
    rights under section 6 of the Constitution and seeks damages for loss, distress
    and inconvenience in the sum of ninety-two million dollars ($92,000,000.00). He
    also seeks an order that he is entitled to protection of the law in accordance with
    section 1 of the Constitution, damages for breach of section 6 of the Constitution,
    costs and further or other orders as the Court thinks fit.

    [6] Mr. Doxilly refers to a Deed of Sale by the Barbados Settlement Company to
    Horace and Leona Jn. Pierre for a one-half share of the Vieux Fort lands dated
    11th September 1951 and registered at the Registry of Deeds and Mortgages on
    12th September 1951 (“the 1951 Deed”). He also refers to a Declaration of
    Possession and Ownership by Mr. Jn. Pierre to the Dennery lands executed on
    18th April 1963 and registered at the Registry of Deeds and Mortgages on 18th
    April 1963 (“1963 Declaration”). These two documents are presented as
    evidence of Mr. Jn. Pierre’s ownership of the lands which are alleged to have
    been ‘confiscated’.

    [7] Mr. Doxilly alleges that by Statutory Rules and Orders 1974 No. 31 and other
    Statutory Instruments by the Government of Saint Lucia passed between 1974
    and 1985, the lands owned by Mr. Jn. Pierre were acquired and vested in various
    statutory boards and that no compensation was paid to him as the beneficial
    owner. Mr. Doxilly alleges that he was out of the island at the time the lands
    were acquired.

    [8] Mr. Doxilly therefore claims that he is entitled to the funds in respect of the lands
    acquired by the Government and that the Government is not in compliance with
    the provisions of the Constitution. He avers that he must be compensated for
    the acquiring and vesting of ‘his’ lands.

    [9] After the first hearing, Mr. Doxilly was given permission to file a supplemental
    affidavit to address specific matters in an effort to advance the claim including
    the date and manner of acquisition by the Government of the Vieux Fort and
    Dennery lands mentioned in the claim, and the Block and Parcel Numbers for
    the Dennery lands. In the supplemental affidavit filed on 7th February 2020, Mr. Doxilly says that the 1951 Deed and the 1963 Declaration were both registered at the Registry of Deeds and Mortgages and constituted notice of Mr. Jn. Pierre’s
    ownership to the world. Mr. Doxilly alleges that notwithstanding, the
    Government by Deed of Sale dated 24th January 1952 bought all the Vieux Fort
    lands from the Barbados Settlement Company Limited. He did not address the
    matters for which leave had been granted to file the supplemental affidavit.

    [10] Mr. Doxilly alleges that where lands have been compulsorily acquired by the
    Government as in his case, he is entitled to full and prompt compensation for
    the value of the lands as at the date of the acquisition.

    [11] The AG denies that the Government acquired any property in Vieux Fort or
    Dennery in which Mr. Doxilly has an interest. In response to the claim, Mr.
    Labadie avers that Mr. Doxilly had alternative remedies available to him before
    invoking the Court’s constitutional jurisdiction and therefore the claim ought to
    be struck out.

    [12] Mr. Labadie puts Mr. Doxilly to strict proof that Mr. Jn Pierre was not the owner
    of any lands situated in Vieux Fort or Dennery or as alleged. The defendant
    made no admissions as regards the 1951 Deed and the 1963 Declaration. It
    was admitted that the Government did acquire various parcels of land in Vieux
    Fort from the Barbados Settlement Company. Mr. Labadie avers that he
    consulted available records at his Department as well as the National Archives
    and found no evidence that Mr. Jn. Pierre or anyone on his behalf ever objected
    to the sale of lands by taking legal action or otherwise against either the
    Government or the Barbados Settlement Company Limited. According to the
    records most of the lands were vested in the National Development Corporation
    (now known as Invest St. Lucia), a statutory corporation on 11th May 1974.

    [13] Mr. Labadie says that Mr. Doxilly has failed to prove that any of the lands, Vieux
    Fort or Dennery were ever acquired by the Government and therefore the claim
    ought to be dismissed. In relation to the Vieux Fort land, these lands were not
    compulsorily acquired by the Government but were bought from the Barbados
    Settlement Company Limited by Deed of Sale in 1952 without notice of Mr. Jn.
    Pierre’s alleged interest. In relation to the Dennery lands, Mr. Labadie says Mr.
    Doxilly provided no evidence that these lands were owned by Mr. Jn Pierre.

    [14] Mr. Labadie avers that Mr. Doxilly is not entitled to any funds as he claims as
    there has been no compulsory acquisition of property and there is therefore no
    basis for the claim for ninety-two million dollars.

    Issues for determination

    [15] The issues for the Court’s determination are:

    (a) Whether Mr. Doxilly has provided sufficient evidence to enable the
    defendant to identify the lands to which he refers?

    (b) Whether the Government confiscated, acquired or compulsorily
    acquired any lands in Vieux Fort belonging to Mr. Doxilly or in which he
    has an interest?

    (c) Whether the Government acquired any lands in Dennery belonging to
    Mr. Doxilly or in which he has an interest?

    (d) Whether section 1 of the Constitution guarantees any protections or
    rights to Citizens which are enforceable under section 16 of the
    Constitution?

    (e) Whether the claimant has proved that there has been a breach of
    section 6 of the Constitution and that he is entitled to the relief which he
    seeks?

    (f) Whether the delay of approximately 47 years in bringing a constitutional
    claim is so inordinate that it amounts to an abuse of process?

    Analysis and Discussion

    Pleadings

    [16] At the outset, I note that though Mr. Doxilly filed the Constitutional Motion
    alleging breaches of sections 1, 3, 6, 8, 12 and 13 in the preamble/heading of
    the claim, he only mentions breaches of sections 1 and 6 of the Constitution in
    the pleadings. There are no pleadings in relation to sections 3,8,12 and 13 of
    the Constitution and no indication as to the breaches alleged in relation to those
    sections.

    [17] I refer to the case of Shankiell Myland v Commissioner of Police et al2 where
    Ellis J (as she then was) addressed deficiencies in pleadings in constitutional
    matters. This is what she had to say:

    “[37] Litigation proceeds on the basis that the court is a court of
    pleadings. They are critical in that they give fair notice of the
    case that has to be met, so that the opposing party may direct
    its evidence to the issues disclosed and they assist the court in
    adjudicating on the allegations made by the litigants. Not only
    should they define the issue(s) between litigants with clarity and
    precision, but they also serve as a record of the issues involved
    in the action which can (if necessary) be referred to at a later
    date.
    …
    [39] Thus, every pleading must contain a concise statement of the
    material facts on which a party relies for his or her claim.
    Material facts must be stated clearly and definitely in a
    summary way. They should not need to be inferred from vague
    2GDAHCV2012/0045, delivered 9th May 2014, unreported.

    or ambiguous expressions, or from statements of
    circumstances consistent with different conclusions.

    [40] This is particularly so in the case of public law claims where it
    now settled law that a Claimant who seeks to claim breach of
    constitutional provisions must show on the face of the
    pleadings the nature of the alleged violation or contravention
    that is being asserted.11 Part 56.7 (4) clearly sets out a
    claimant’s responsibility in this regard.

    [41] In order to succeed in his claim for relief, the Claimant must
    therefore not only allege but provide cogent evidence that these
    Defendants have through their action or inaction breached or
    violated his rights under the Constitution. He would have to
    demonstrate that the Defendants have in some way acted
    inconsistently with his rights, which obliges them to refrain from
    or remedy the activities which are otherwise unlawful. The
    Court cannot accept that in these circumstances it is
    appropriate for a claimant to ignore the requirements set out
    under the CPR and to seek to litigate an issue which has not
    been raised in his pleadings, thus taking the opposite party
    completely by surprise.”

    [18] I will therefore not be addressing any of those sections identified above (s. 3, 8,
    12, 13) as there are no pleadings in relation to them and no evidence was given
    as to the breaches alleged and the rights which have been infringed.
    Burden of Proof

    [19] In constitutional claims the burden of proof rests on the claimant to prove a prima
    facie infringement of the right. It is therefore for Mr. Doxilly to prove that his
    rights have been infringed. He must provide the evidence of that infringement.

    (a) Whether Mr. Doxilly has provided sufficient evidence to enable the
    defendant to identify the lands to which he refers?

    [20] Mr. Doxilly disclosed several land registers in his list of documents filed on 28th
    December 2020 but none of these were referred to in any of his affidavits which
    contain his evidence in the matter so it unclear which registers refer to which
    lands or whether these registers refer to the lands in question at all. Even after
    Mr. Doxilly was given leave to file a supplemental affidavit to address matters
    such as the block and parcel numbers for the land referred to in the claim, he
    failed to provide that information in the supplemental affidavit and simply
    referred to the 1951 Deed and the 1963 Declaration. He does not produce any
    evidence of a surveyor to assist the Court in identifying the lands to which he
    refers since all lands have now been registered pursuant to the Land
    Registration and Titling Project and have been assigned block and parcel
    numbers by which they are identified.
    [21] Mr. Doxilly’s responses in cross-examination further support the position that he
    failed to provide evidence to enable proper identification of the lands in question.
    He was asked whether he could say with certainty that Mr. Jn Pierre had not
    sold the land which he bought in Vieux Fort in 1951 to the Government at any
    time and he said he had no idea. When questioned about the fact that he had
    not specifically stated the block and parcels numbers for the lands, Mr. Doxilly
    response was that he did not have them with him at the time and he would have
    to put it together. He agreed though that a licensed land surveyor could have
    assisted to trace the lands in question to the relevant block and parcel numbers.
    When asked similar questions about the Dennery lands and the lack of evidence
    of any block and parcel numbers, Mr. Doxilly’s response was that it was his
    lawyer, Mr. James who had put everything together.

    [22] The AG submits that Mr. Doxilly has failed to plead his claim in a manner to
    enable the AG to know in sufficient detail the case against it and to be in a
    position to respond to the claim. I am in total agreement with this submission.
    He has failed to properly identify the lands which are allegedly the subject matter
    of this claim and which he alleges were acquired by the Government.
    (b) Whether the Government confiscated, acquired or compulsorily
    acquired any lands in Vieux Fort belonging to Mr. Doxilly or in which
    he has an interest?

    [23] In addition to Mr. Doxilly not having provided evidence to identify the lands which
    he refers to as the Vieux Fort lands, he has failed to show that Government
    either confiscated, acquired or compulsorily acquired any lands belonging to Mr.
    Jn Pierre from him. What Mr. Doxilly’s pleadings suggest is that the Barbados
    Settlement Company Limited sold land to Mr. Jn Pierre in 1951 and then turned
    around and sold that same land as part of a bigger portion of lands to the
    Government in 1952. Mr. Doxilly has not assisted the Court to show that the
    land sold in 1951 was indeed sold again in 1952. That was for him to do. In any
    event, that is not an acquisition of land by the Government from Mr. Jn Pierre
    as the lands in the 1952 Deed were acquired through sale and not compulsory
    acquisition.

    [24] Additionally, as Counsel for the AG correctly submits, the 1952 Deed sets out
    the land which was bought by the Government of Saint Lucia from the Barbados
    Settlement Company Limited but it is unclear whether these lands are one and
    the same as the lands bought by virtue of the 1951 Deed as Mr. Doxilly has
    failed to properly identify the block and parcel numbers of the lands which he
    claims were confiscated/acquired. Mr. Doxilly’s own confusion is seen from his
    use of the terms acquired, confiscated and compulsorily acquired at various
    points in his pleadings and submissions. Additionally, Mr. Doxilly has provided
    no evidence from a surveyor to clarify that the lands referred to in the 1951 Deed
    are indeed those described in the 1952 Deed. The Court is in no position to
    make that determination.

    [25] The absence of this evidence coupled with the lack of evidence of any
    acquisition by the Government of any Vieux Fort lands makes it difficult to
    ascertain the basis for Mr. Doxilly’s claim.

    (c) Whether the Government acquired any lands in Dennery belonging to
    Mr. Doxilly or in which he has an interest?

    [26] As in the case of the Vieux Fort lands, Mr. Doxilly has failed to show that the
    lands in the 1963 Declaration were indeed compulsorily acquired at any point in
    time by the Government. There is absolutely no evidence of such an acquisition.
    [27] As submitted by Counsel for the AG, at the time of the alleged acquisition which
    is a date unknown after Mr. Jn Pierre’s death in 1973, the Land Acquisition Act
    No. 12 of 1945 which came into force on 1st March 19463 was the relevant
    legislation and provided for certain procedural steps to be taken before property
    could be said to have been compulsorily acquired by the Government. Part of
    this process includes publication of a declaration by the Governor General in
    two ordinary issues of the Gazette and posting of the declaration on the buildings
    (if any) on the land and the declaration is to contain certain particulars.

    [28] It is the AG’s submission and I agree that in light of this Act, documents ought
    to exist relating to this alleged acquisition by the Government but Mr. Doxilly has
    failed to produce any such document or record of such acquisition.

    [29] Mr. Doxilly has not exhibited any publication of any declaration as regards
    acquisition of the Vieux Fort and Dennery lands. He makes a bold statement
    concerning the acquisition of the lands which is not supported by evidence. As
    stated earlier, the burden is on Mr. Doxilly to prove the breach which he alleges.
    Mr. Doxilly in cross examination admitted that when the Gazettes for the period
    1973 to present time were searched no declaration of compulsory acquisition
    was found.

    (d)Whether section 1 of the Constitution guarantees any protections or
    rights to Citizens which are enforceable under section 16 of the
    Constitution?

    [30] Section 1 of the Constitution states as follows:
    “Whereas every person in Saint Lucia is entitled to the fundamental
    rights and freedoms, that is to say, the right, whatever his or her race,
    place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to
    respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest,
    to each and all of the following, namely—

    (a) life, liberty, security of the person, equality before the law and
    the protection of the law;

    (b) freedom of conscience, of expression and of assembly and
    association; and 3Chap 5.04, Revised Laws of Saint Lucia

    (c) protection for his or her family life, his or her personal privacy,
    the privacy of his or her home and other property and from
    deprivation of property without compensation,
    the provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for the purpose of
    affording protection to those rights and freedoms subject to such
    limitations of that protection as are contained in those provisions, being
    limitations designed to ensure that the enjoyment of the said rights and
    freedoms by any person does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of
    others or the public interest.”

    [31] It is the AG’s contention that section 1 of the Constitution is a general provision
    and is not enforceable and reliance is placed on Kent Andrews v The Attorney
    General4 where Baptiste JA addressed the question of whether the general
    statement of fundamental rights and freedoms in identical provision of section 1
    in the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution is separately enforceable.

    [32] At paragraph 29 of Kent Andrews, Baptiste JA says: “The Constitution itself provides the answer. It is evident from a reading
    of the Constitution that section 1 is not separately enforceable. It is not
    included in the enforcement provision. Section 16(1) of the Constitution
    gives a right to apply for redress to any person alleging a right of direct
    access to the High Court for the purposes enumerated in the section.
    Again, like St. Vincent and the Grenadines, section 16 gives a right to
    apply for redress to any person alleging a contravention of any of the
    provisions of sections 2 to 15 (inclusive) but did not refer to section 1.
    In Blomquist the Privy Council held that the power to provide such
    redress was limited to that provided for in section 6 and rejected the
    argument that section 1 conferred an independent and wider power
    which was separately enforceable.”

    [33] The AG submits that likewise section 16 of the Saint Lucia Constitution confers
    a right of access to the High Court to persons who allege contravention of any
    of the provisions of sections 2 to 15 but does not include section 1.
    [34] I highlight two cases in that regard. In relation to section 5 of the Malta
    Constitution, which is identical to section 1 of the Saint Lucia Constitution, the
    Privy Council in Oliver and another v Buttigieg5 said:
    4SLUHCVAP2010/0019, delivered 7th November 2011, unreported.

    [1966] 2 All ER 459 at 461.

    “It is to be noted that the section begins with the word “Whereas”.
    Though the section must be given such declaratory force as it
    independently possesses, it would appear in the main to be of the
    nature of a preamble. It is an introduction to and in a sense a
    prefatory or explanatory note in regard to the sections which are
    to follow. It is a declaration of entitlement—coupled however with
    a declaration that though “every person in Malta” is entitled to the
    “fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual as specified,
    yet such entitlement is “subject to respect for the rights and
    freedoms of others and for the public interest”. The section
    appears to proceed by way of explanation of the scheme of the
    succeeding sections.… (my emphasis)

    [35] In the case of Campbell-Rodriques and others v Attorney General,
    the Board said in relation to section 13 of the Jamaican Constitution, identical to
    section 1 of the Saint Lucia Constitution that:

    “[12] Both the Constitutional Court and the Court of Appeal
    rejected the Appellants’ argument that s 13 conferred separate and
    independent rights. They regarded it as in essence a preamble and
    accepted the Respondent’s submission that its declaratory force
    was confined to declaring that the rights set out in Ch III of the
    Constitution were not being created de novo but existed prior to
    the Constitution. Their Lordships are satisfied that s 13 does not
    confer any freestanding rights and that on the clear interpretation
    of the provisions of Ch III the rights and freedoms enforceable
    under s 25 are to be those set out in s 14 to 24 inclusive. They
    agree with Cooke JA when he said (Record, p 379) that “a
    ‘generous and purposive interpretation’ does not permit a
    distortion of the explicit relevant constitutional provisions.” (my
    emphasis)

    [36] I note that Mr. James, Counsel for Mr. Doxilly did not address this matter at all
    in his submissions, written or oral. I agree based on the authority of Kent
    Andrews from our Court of Appeal and the Privy Council decisions from
    jurisdictions with similar provisions as the Saint Lucia Constitution that section
    1 does not confer free-standing rights enforceable under section 16 and
    therefore Mr. Doxilly cannot claim that section 1 has been breached and entitles
    him to seek redress pursuant to section 16.

    [2007] UKPC 65.

    (e) Whether the claimant has proved that there has been a breach of
    section 6 of the Constitution and that he is entitled to the relief which
    he seeks?

    [37] The relevant parts of section 6 of the Constitution read:
    “(1) No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken
    possession of, and no interest in or right over property of any
    description shall be compulsorily acquired, except for a public
    purpose and except where provision is made by a law applicable
    to that taking of possession or acquisition for the prompt payment
    of full compensation.

    (2) Every person having an interest in or right over property that is
    compulsorily taken possession of or whose interest in or right over
    any property is compulsorily acquired shall have a right of direct
    access to the High Court for—

    (a) determining the nature and extent of that interest or right;

    (b) determining whether that taking of possession or acquisition
    was duly carried out in accordance with a law authorising the
    taking of possession or acquisition;

    (c) determining what compensation he or she is entitled to under
    the law applicable to that taking of possession or acquisition;
    (d) obtaining that compensation.”

    [38] The starting point must be the establishment that the lands in question have
    been compulsorily taken possession of or have been compulsorily acquired.

    [39] Having established that Mr. Doxilly has failed to prove or provide any evidence
    that the Government ever acquired any of the lands mentioned in his claim, he
    has failed to establish a breach of section 6 of the Constitution. Consequently,
    Mr. Doxilly is not entitled to any of the relief which he seeks.

    [40] As a result of my finding above, it is not necessary for there to be any discussion
    regarding whether the provision to section 16 of the Constitution should apply
    and whether the Court is satisfied that adequate means of redress for the
    contravention alleged are or have been available to Mr. Doxilly.

    (f) Whether the delay of approximately 47 years in bringing a
    constitutional claim is so inordinate that it amounts to an abuse of
    process.

    [41] The lands allegedly owned by Mr. Jn Pierre were acquired by him according to
    Mr. Doxilly’s evidence in 1951 and 1963. Mr. Jn. Pierre died in 1973. The LRTP
    spanned the years 1984-1987. However, there was no claim by Mr. Doxilly as
    his executor or as a person having an interest in the lands belonging to Mr. Jn.
    Pierre during the LRTP. Mr. Doxilly says this is because he was not in Saint
    Lucia during the LRTP. It would take thirty-eight years after Mr. Jn. Pierre’s
    death for Mr. Doxilly to apply for probate of Mr. Jn. Pierre’s will, the will having
    been admitted to probate in 2011. He alleges that Mr. Jn. Pierre’s lands were
    acquired by the Government long before the LRTP, yet it would take him another
    eight (8) years to file this claim after he obtained the grant of probate in 2011.
    Whilst Counsel for Mr. Doxilly, Mr. James in his pre-trial memorandum refers to
    certain letters written to the AG concerning this matter, this is nowhere in the
    evidence provided by Mr. Doxilly in his several affidavits.

    [42] Mr. Doxilly has filed a claim which makes bare allegations and is at best
    speculative. He has provided no evidence of this alleged acquisition of lands
    and has left the defendant with nothing to answer. The AG extended courtesies
    and consented to allowing Mr. Doxilly the opportunity to provide the relevant
    information which may have assisted his claim and he still did not provide what
    was required.

    [43] It is important that Counsel remember that pleadings are important and lay the
    foundation of a claim. Evidence is critical. A list of documents is not evidence
    and the documents being relied on in support of a party’s case must be referred
    to in the affidavits. As I indicated earlier several land registers were disclosed
    but none were mentioned in the affidavit evidence. The Court does not possess
    the ability to know what is in a litigant’s contemplation as far as the evidence
    they intend to rely on and therefore the litigant and counsel must take care to
    provide it in the proper manner.

    [44] Mr. Doxilly’s complaint about the Vieux Fort lands appears to be that Mr. Jn.
    Pierre’s lands were sold to the Government of Saint Lucia by the Barbados
    Settlement Company Limited in 1952 albeit they had already been sold the year
    prior to Mr. Jn. Pierre. This meant that Mr. Doxilly as executor and beneficiary
    should have made a claim to the said lands and presented the 1951 Deed during
    the LRTP to ensure that his interest (whatever it was) was taken into account.
    Having not done so during that process, Mr. Doxilly cannot now use this
    constitutional claim alleging that ‘his’ lands were compulsorily acquired without
    providing any proof of such acquisition, to be compensated for lands which he
    omitted to claim or register an interest in.

    [45] The AG referred to the Trinidadian case of Dr. Trevor Analtol v North Central
    Regional Health Authority8 where Boodoosingh J stated the general principle
    that there is no time limit for filing a constitutional claim and delay ought not to
    shut a litigant out of the Court. However, he went on to say that delay may
    render a constitutional claim an abuse of process or disentitle a claimant to relief
    if that delay is so inordinate.

    [46] The general rule as per CPR 56.13(6) is that no order for costs may be made
    against an applicant for an administrative order unless the court considers that
    the applicant has acted unreasonably in making the application or in the conduct
    of the application.

    [47] In light of the discussion above, I am of the view that the filing of this claim is an
    abuse of the Court’s process due to the inordinate delay in the claimant
    approaching the Court. The Court also considers that the claimant has acted
    unreasonably in bringing the claim. In light of this, I am minded to consider
    making an award of costs against the claimant notwithstanding the general rule
    and would invite submissions from the parties in this regard.

    Final Order

    [48] Based on the foregoing, I make the following order:

    (a) The claim is dismissed.

    (b) The parties shall file submissions on costs within fourteen (14) days of the
    date of this judgment failing which the Court will assess the costs.

    7See the dicta of Pereira CJ in Joseph and others v Francois; and Matty and others v Francois,
    SLUHCVAP 2011/0025 and SLUHCVAP2012/0037, delivered 21st August 2015.
    8 CV 2011-02619, delivered 19th July 2012.

    [49] Finally, the Court conveys its sincere regrets for the delay in rendering the
    judgment in this matter and must thank Counsel and the parties for their
    patience.

     

     

    Kimberly Cenac-Phulgence

     

    High Court Judge

     

    By The Court

    <

    p style=”text-align: right;”>Dp. Registrar

    /dennis-bernard-doxilly-v-the-attorney-general-2/
     Prev
    Vacancy Notice – Senior Crown Counsel, Office of the Attorney General, Grenada
    Next 
    Esther Alexander v Sunrod Property Inc.
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more