1
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL SUIT NO. 14 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
LEVI ASHTON
Plaintiff
and
KENUTE LEACOCK
Defendant
Appearances:
Arthur Williams for the Plaintiff
Colin Williams for the Defendant
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2000: September 21, 25
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
JUDGMENT
[1] MITCHELL, J: This is a dispute between a landlord and a tenant arising out of the
forcible eviction of the tenant by the landlord. Giving evidence for the Plaintiff was
his girlfriend, Catherine John. The Plaintiff did not give evidence at the trial, as he
has found work since last December in the island of Barbados and has been
unable to return to testify. The Defendant himself was in the USA and unable to
be present to testify. His agent for the rental premises, Sharon Dougan, gave
evidence.
[2] The facts are not seriously in dispute. It appears that sometime in the year 1998
Dextron Ashton and her brother the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with
Sharon Dougan to rent the partially furnished two-bedroom house of the
Defendant at Evesham in St Vincent. The rent was $250.00 per month. The case
2
for the Defendant was that only Dextron Ashton and not the Plaintiff was the
tenant. The suggestion was that the Plaintiff had been a mere trespasser. The
rent receipts had been issued by the Defendant’s agent in Dextron Ashton’s name
alone. But, there was no denial that the premises were occupied without objection
by the Defendant from the start of the tenancy to its termination by the Plaintiff.
The evidence indicated that the Defendant’s agent had accepted throughout the
tenancy that Dextron and her brother the Plaintiff were to live in the premises. The
witness for the Defendant denied that the Plaintiff had throughout the tenancy paid
one half of the rent, but the Plaintiff was an employed carpenter at the time and I
am quite satisfied that he paid half the rent for the premises, and that the agent
knew so. The Plaintiff was no trespasser, but, equally with his sister, a tenant of
the premises of the Defendant. Sometime after the tenancy commenced,
Catherine John, the girlfriend of the Plaintiff, had moved into the house with the
Plaintiff and his sister Dextron Ashton. She brought their baby with her. There is
no suggestion that this had been contrary to the rental agreement or that the sister
Dextron Ashton had originally objected to her brother’s girlfriend and child moving
into the house. Not unusually in such cases, Dextron Ashton eventually became
uncomfortable with the situation. On or about 22 December 1998 she left the
premises and went to live elsewhere. It was only after Dextron Ashton had left the
premises that the Defendant through his agent objected to the Plaintiff occupying
the premises.
[3] One day shortly after Dextron Ashton left the rented premises, on or about the 4th
January 1999, Kenute Leacock, the landlord and Defendant in this case, came to
the premises in question and asked the Plaintiff and his girlfriend to leave by the
9th, ie, in 5 days time. There had been no dispute between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant up to that date. No rent was in arrears, not had any covenant of the
tenancy been broken by the Plaintiff. No lawful notice to quit had been served on
the Plaintiff. No court order had been obtained by the Defendant ordering the
Plaintiff to vacate the premises and authorizing the Bailiffs to break down the door
and evict the Plaintiff. The Defendant through his witness had no explanation to
3
give to the court for the summary verbal notice to quit or the action that he
subsequently took. Sharon Dougan said in evidence that she had told the Plaintiff
and his girlfriend on a number of occasions after Dextron Ashton had left the
premises that the Defendant was coming back to St Vincent and wanted the
premises to repair. That allegation was not put to the Plaintiff’s witness when she
was being cross-examined, and in any event, even if true, was no justification for
what the Defendant subsequently did. In the event, the Plaintiff and his girlfriend
did not vacate the premises as a result of the summary notice of 4th January.
When the Defendant came back to the rental premises on the 9th of January, he
came with 2 of his brothers at about 7 am, before the Plaintiff had left for work.
With his 2 brothers backing him up, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff and his
girlfriend and young baby to leave the premises immediately failing which he said
he would “break down the place” and force them out. Faced with this threat of
violence, the Plaintiff left for the nearest Police Station, which was a short distance
away in the town of Mesopotamia, to seek assistance. The girlfriend secured the
premises by locking the door, and went with her baby to the house of a friend
some one hundred yards away to await his return. The Plaintiff was, according to
the testimony of his girlfriend, unable to persuade a police officer to come with him
to prevent the Defendant from carrying out his threats. The police apparently
informed him that they could not assist him, that it was a private matter and he
would have to get a lawyer to help him.
[4] It should hardly be necessary to observe that it is not only in England that a man’s
home is his castle. In St Vincent and the Grenadines, too, a man is entitled to the
full protection of the law when he is peacefully occupying his home. It matters not
whether that home is the most luxurious mansion or the simplest of chattel
houses. Nor does it matter in law whether the home is held in fee simple or is
merely rented premises. No landlord is permitted to visit the premises he has
rented out and threaten the tenant with forcible eviction. This is so even if the
tenant is holding over or is in breach of some covenant in the lease or tenancy
agreement. In this case, the Plaintiff was not in breach of any covenant in the
4
tenancy agreement. If a landlord uses force to evict a tenant he becomes a
trespasser on his own property. A man is entitled to use all reasonable and
necessary force to protect his home and to shield his family from being forced out
into the street. That force may even in appropriate if exceptional cases extend to
lethal force. By comparison, force may be used by a landlord to evict a tenant, no
matter how seriously the tenant may have breached the lease, only as a result of
an order of a court authorizing the use of force. Under no circumstances may a
landlord in St Vincent ever, without the sanction of a court order to that effect,
attend at the rented premises and throw the possessions of his tenant out of the
rooms in which the tenant has placed them. Any landlord who breaks that rule is
guilty of the tort of trespass and must pay damages and compensation for the loss
and harm that he has caused. That has been the rule in St Vincent, as it has been
in England, for centuries. Such an act by a landlord has even been made a
criminal offence in England, punishable with imprisonment for up to 6 months,
though the House of Assembly has not yet seen it fit to extend such protection to
tenants in St Vincent and the Grenadines.
[5] While it is true that the police are not expected to get involved in disputes over
private property, the situation changes when the information given to the police
makes it apparent that a breach of the peace may occur. It is the clear duty of the
police to take all necessary steps to prevent a threatened breach of the peace
from occurring. Since a tenant is entitled to use all reasonable force, up to and
including lethal force in exceptional cases if necessary as previously mentioned, to
protect his premises from forcible entry and eviction, it has always been the rule
that when the police learn that a landlord is about to use unlawful force to evict a
tenant they will hasten, no, rush at full speed, to the premises in question to warn
the landlord, restraining him by arrest if necessary, and thus prevent the inevitable
breach of the peace from occurring. This court finds it difficult to comprehend how
and why, if the story given by the Plaintiff’s witness is true, the police at the
Mesopotamia Police Station could have reacted to the report made to them with
the nonchalance and insouciance that they allegedly did on this occasion.
5
Fortunately for all concerned, the Plaintiff was an incredibly peaceful and lawabiding
citizen and did not resort to the self-help that the law permits him in these
circumstances.
[6] By the time that the Plaintiff and his girlfriend got back to the premises, which was
at about midday, the Defendant and his helpers had already removed the
possessions of the Plaintiff and his girlfriend from the inside of the house and
placed them on the outside. The Defendant and his helpers were inside the house
and the Plaintiff and his girlfriend could not reenter. They found the garbage from
the house mixed in with their clothes and other possessions outside on the porch.
The Plaintiff and his girlfriend left the premises to seek alternative accommodation.
At about 9 pm that night, they retrieved their possessions from the exterior of the
rental house where they had been placed by the Defendant and his brothers and
took them to the new accommodation. Inevitably, some of their possessions were
damaged and others were missing. It was put to the Plaintiff’s witness that their
claim for the loss and damage is false. The claim for loss and damage was
strenuously and credibly repeated in the evidence of Catherine John. I believe the
witness and accept the claim as proved. Even if a tenant in these circumstances
engages in creative loss reporting, which I do not believe happened in this case,
that is a risk that a landlord takes in using unlawful force to evict a tenant he no
longer wants. He may end up having to pay compensation that exceeds the actual
loss and damage he caused. That is another reason, if one were needed, why a
sensible landlord would never use unauthorised force to evict a tenant.
[7] There is a counterclaim by the Defendant for amounts alleged to have been owing
by the Plaintiff for use of water and electricity at the termination of the tenancy.
These amounts had never been claimed of the Plaintiff prior to the filing of the
counterclaim. No utility bills had ever been shown to the Plaintiff before the trial.
No bills were produced in court. The witness for the Defendant had never herself
seen the bills.
6
[8] In the circumstances, there will be judgment for the Plaintiff. The question arises
as to suitable sums to be awarded. Counsel for the Plaintiff has asked that, in
addition to general damages, the principle in the case of Valentine v Rampersad
(1970) 17 WIR 12 be followed and that there be an award of exemplary damages
of $5,000.00. That is a fraction of the sum that he might reasonably have
requested on the Plaintiff’s behalf in the circumstances of this case, and I have no
hesitation in awarding so modest a sum to the Plaintiff by way of exemplary
damages for the unlawful violence done by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and his
family in the peaceful enjoyment of their home. The Plaintiff is also entitled to an
amount of general damages, and I consider the sum of $5,000.00 to be a suitable
token that the Defendant should pay to him by way of compensation for the
trespass. In the result, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff special damages of
$6,099.78, general damages of $5,000.00 and exemplary damages of $5,000.00,
to a total of $16,099.78. The Plaintiff shall also have his costs to be taxed if not
agreed.
I D MITCHELL, QC
High Court Judge