THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS ACT CAP. 132 OF THE LAWS
OF SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES REVISED EDITION 2009
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ERIC RANDOLPH COTTLE FOR THE
RECTIFICATION OF DEED OF GIFT NUMBER 2746 OF 1991 AND DEED OF GIFT
NUMBER 1138 OF 1993
ERIC RANDOLPH COTTLE
THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Suzanne Commissiong of counsel for the claimant.
Mrs. Cerepha Harper-Joseph and Ms. Gabrielle Mayers of counsel for the
2020: Sept. 30
 Henry, J.: Eric Randolph Cottle claimed that he is
registered as the owner of two parcels of land located at Hope, in the
Parish of Saint Andrew, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, one being a
portion of the other. To support this claim, he produced 2 Deeds of Gift
numbered 2746 of 1991 and 1138 of 1993 respectively. The later deed
purports to convey a larger area of land than the previous deed. The Deeds
name ‘Eric Ormond Cottle’ as the donor and Eric
Ormond Cottle as the donee. Embodied in this assertion is the idea that the
1991 deed was ineffective to transfer the subject land. If it was
effective, the donor in the 1993 deed should have been Eric Ormond Cottle.
Mr. Eric Cottle sought orders to amend the Deeds by replacing the name
‘Eric Ormond Cottle’ with the name ‘Eric Randolph Cottle’. The Registrar of
the High Court who serves as the Registrar of Deeds was the sole defendant.
 The Registrar filed a defence in which she indicated that she stands as
a neutral party. The persons identified in the Deeds of Gift as adjoining
landowners did not testify and they were not made parties to the claim. Mr.
Cottle provided no explanation as to why they were not served with copies
of the filings and named as interested parties or defendants. Mr. Cottle’s
claim is dismissed for the reasons outlined in this judgment.
 The issue is whether an order should be made to change the name of
owner in the referenced Deeds of Gift, from ‘Eric Ormond Cottle’ to ‘Eric
Issue – Should an order be made to change the name of owner in the
referenced Deeds of Gift from ‘Eric Ormond Cottle’ to ‘Eric Randolph
 The law empowers the Court to make corrections to a Deed by rectifying
any omission or imperfection
, if the Court is satisfied that it is just to do so. The Court must
evaluate carefully whether the proposed changes would affect any third
party legal or equitable interest, right or title to the property. It must
ensure that each person who is likely to be affected by such an order is
given an opportunity to be heard.
 Mr. Cottle was the only witness. He stated that his father Ormond
Fandolph Cottle aka Fandolph
Ormond Cottle gave him 27,878 square feet of land at Hope in 1991. He
indicated that the gift was evidenced by Deed of Gift 2746 of 1991. He
averred that it was subsequently discovered that the area of land specified
in the Deed was not accurate and therefore a ‘supplemental’ Deed of Gift
(number 1138 of 1993) was prepared to increase the size of land to 33,660
square feet. Counsel for both parties acknowledged that they are unaware of
any legal provision or authority which authorizes such an approach for
correction of Deeds.
 Mr. Cottle testified that his father passed away on November 30 th, 2014. A death certificate was exhibited to this effect. Mr.
Cottle also produced a birth certificate
in respect of a male child named ‘Eric Randolph Ian Cottle’ born to Shirley
Cottle on 21 April 1961 and fathered by Fandolph Ormond Cottle. He asserted
that this was the record of his birth. He provided no proof of
identification which would support a finding either that he is the person
named in the birth certificate or that there is no other person known as
‘Eric Ormond Cottle’ who was the intended donee in both Deeds. He averred
that he wished to sell the subject land and required the corrections to be
made to facilitate this transaction.
 Mr. Cottle supplied no evidence regarding what notification if any, was
provided to adjoining landowners in 1993, of the purported increase of the
boundaries of the subject land which the ‘Supplemental Deed of Gift’ sought
to effect. No documentation was presented to the court which demonstrated
that notification to this effect was made available to those landowners.
Mr. Cottle made no representations as to the legal basis on which the
‘supplemental’ Deed of Gift could validly effect an increase in the size of
the subject property, or effect any change in the earlier Deed. This court
is not aware of any such law.
 Mr. Cottle submitted that the sole issue to be determined is whether
his Christian names in the Deeds of Conveyance should be corrected in
accordance with Section 17 (c) of the Act. He submitted further that he
disclosed an affidavit of identity
to which he exhibited his drivers’ licence and a certified copy of his
birth certificate as proof of identity and in which his name is stated as
Eric Randolph Ian Cottle. He pointed out that the father’s name on the
latter is entered as ‘Fandolph Ormond Cottle’. The affidavit of identity
was not filed
and forms no part of the evidence. It is disregarded.
 Mr. Cottle contended that he also exhibited a certified copy of the
death certificate of Ormond Fandolph Cottle dated the 30th day
of November 2014. He submitted that it is evident from the birth and death
certificates that Fandolph Ormond Cottle and Ormond Fandolph Cottle are the
same person. He submitted further that the error in the Deeds of Conveyance
is simple; that the Registrar has not opposed the application, has remained
a neutral party in the proceedings and the application should therefore be
 Mr. Cottle reasoned that the case ofMaudrie Wilson-Williams v Stanley Williams
, involved a similar application to rectify a Deed of Gift between a
husband and wife, in which the Christian names were incorrectly stated. He
submitted that Mrs. Williams produced the deeds, birth certificates and the
death certificate of her brother while Mr. Williams produced his identity
card. He noted that an order to rectify the Deed of Conveyance was granted.
Mr. Cottle argued that he has produced the same documents as the
 He contended that one of his Christian names is incorrectly stated as
Ormond instead of Randolph. He submitted that enough documentary evidence
has been exhibited as proof of his correct name. He contended that the
Court can easily make a determination and make an Order that the Registrar
of the High Court rectify this error in both Deeds to reflect his correct
Christian name at pages 1 and 4 of the Deeds of Gift.
 The Registrar submitted that Mr. Cottle filed no declaration of
identity and that there is no evidence to indicate that the name ‘Eric
Ormond Cottle’ on the Deed and the name ‘Eric Randolph Ian Cottle’ refers
to one and the same person. She submitted further that while she accepts
that the different names could be attributable to errors, the evidence
before the court is not ‘as clear to assist the court in coming to its
 She argued that the estate of the deceased Ormond Fandolph Cottle or
Fandolph Ormond Cottle is not represented in these proceedings and
therefore one cannot ascertain the intention of the named donor in the
Deeds. She reasoned that the heart of the case lies with identification.
The Registrar submitted that no party likely to be affected by these
proceedings was joined as a defendant; and therefore, the court cannot
grant the orders sought. She cited as authority the decision in Kenson Wilson v the Registrar
 Mr. Cottle acknowledged that the facts of this case demonstrate that a
boundary issue arises for consideration by the court. He thereby conceded
by implication, that adjoining landowners have an interest in the present
proceedings. He also accepted that there is no good root of title in either
 It does not escape the court’s attention that an order granting the
orders sought, would have the effect of sanctioning the irregular and
legally flawed attempt at correcting the first Deed (by increasing the area
of land) without notification to the public and particularly to the
adjoining land owners. For obvious reasons this cannot be permitted.
 Similarly, in the absence of credible substantive evidence of his
identity, this court is unable to find that the person who testified in the
instant case was the intended donee identified in both Deeds as ‘Eric
Ormond Cottle’. I am not satisfied that he is, and I make no such finding.
 Significantly, Mr. Cottle provided no Deed or other documentary
evidence which illustrated that the land conveyed by the first Deed fell
short of the area legally vested in and owned by the donor. In this regard,
Mr. Cottle did not provide the Deed of Indenture or other instrument by
which Ormond Fandolph Cottle aka Fandolph Ormond Cottle was originally
registered as owner. The factual underpinning for concluding that an error
had been made, is absent. Furthermore, it would be unjust to ratify that
change in the absence of the adjoining landowners. These features
distinguish this case from the Maudrie Wilson-Williams v Stanley Williams precedent
referenced by Mr. Cottle. He has failed to establish his claim.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
 The Registrar was represented by the chambers of the Honourable
Attorney General. She filed no pleadings. Only very brief cross-examination
was conducted. In matters of this nature, it is usual to make no order as
to costs. Nothing emerges from the circumstances which warrant a departure
from the usual ‘no costs’ order.
 It is accordingly ordered: –
- Eric Randolph Cottle’s claim for an order to rectify the Deeds of Gift
No. 2746 of 1991 and 1138 of 1993 is
No order as to costs.
Esco L. Henry
HIGH COURT JUDGE
By the Court
Registration of Documents Act, Cap 132 of the Laws of Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines, Revised Edition 2009, section 17(c) (‘the
Recorded as entry number A484, page number 97, for the First
Registration District Vol year 1961; Saint Vincent and the
Dated 17th February 2020.
As mandated by CPR 30.1(6).