1
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL SUIT NO. 547 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
MARCIA SIMMONS (The duly constituted
Attorney on Record for Abraham Adams)
Administratrix of the estate of Annie Adams, deceased
Plaintiff
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendant
Appearances:
Mr Richard Williams for the Plaintiff
Mr Donald Browne, Solicitor General, for the Defendant
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2000: June 20, July 6, 13
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
JUDGMENT
[1] MITCHELL, J: This was a land dispute between the heirs of Annie Adams, late of
Union Island in the State of St Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Government
of St Vincent. It involves approximately one acre of land in the town of Clifton in
Union Island on which land the government has built a Fisheries Complex. The
heirs claim that they and their ancestor Annie Adams had long owned the land
prior to the construction.
[2] The proceedings commenced by an originating summons issued on 8 November
1999. The summons was supported by an affidavit of the same date of the
Plaintiff and to which affidavit were attached a number of tax receipts and other
documents. By the summons the Plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:
2
(1) a declaration that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of one acre more or less
of land situate at Clifton Union Island upon which the Crown has
constructed a fisheries complex;
(2) a declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the parcel of land
being one acre more or less situate at Clifton Union Island;
(3) a declaration that the Defendant’s title, if any, has been extinguished by
operation of the Limitation Act Cap 90 of the Laws of St Vincent and the
Grenadines;
(4) mesne profits from January 1993 until possession is delivered up;
(5) alternatively, damages in the sum of $2,000,000.00;
(6) damages for trespass;
(7) costs;
(8) such further or other relief.
[3] The Defendant entered an appearance on 9 December 1999, and an affidavit in
reply was sworn by Clifford Williams and filed on 17 May 2000. By directions
given on 18 May 2000 pursuant to Order 28 rule 4 of the Rules of the Supreme
Court, it was determined that the matter would be tried in open court on 20 June
2000 on affidavit as well as oral evidence. Further affidavits were sworn and filed
on behalf of the Plaintiff by her previous solicitor, Sylvester Raymond Cadette, on
8 June 2000, and by the Plaintiff on 20 June 2000.
[4] When the matter came up for trial on 20 June, the court heard testimony from
Marcia Simmons, Sylvester Raymond Cadette, George Brown, and Dexter
Gellizeau for the Plaintiff. Giving evidence for the Defendant was the Chief
3
Surveyor for St Vincent, Mr Clifford Williams. He put in the original survey plan of
1912 for the eastern part of Union Island, which includes the area in dispute. At
the conclusion of the case an amendment to the claim by the Plaintiff was allowed
to add a further paragraph of relief claimed as follows:
(9) an order for possession of the parcel of land;
[5] The evidence for the Plaintiffs was to the effect that they had been the owners of
the land for some 70 years prior to the Crown going into possession in the year
1993 and constructing the Fisheries Complex on it. The Crown’s only objection to
their claim was that neither Annie Adams nor her heirs had a deed for the land.
Having heard the evidence, in particular of Mr Williams, I am satisfied that neither
the Government of St Vincent nor its citizens are well served by the present
system of land titles in St Vincent. Land titles in St Vincent are in theory based on
common law deeds. There are two defects in that system immediately apparent to
anyone who has had to adjudicate over land disputes in St Vincent. First, the
possession of a deed in St Vincent and the Grenadines is no guarantee of proof of
ownership of a parcel of land. It is not unusual to find two or three persons with
different deeds relating to the ownership of the same parcel of land. Secondly, the
lack of a deed is no impediment in St Vincent and the Grenadines to claiming
successfully to hold legal title to a parcel of land. Most land in St Vincent appears
to be held without any title document of any kind. It is for the above reasons that
most islands in the West Indies have long ago given up the system of land
ownership based on common law deeds. There is a real social need in St Vincent
and the Grenadines for a modern system of registered ownership of land titles.
[6] Land titles to parcels in Union Island should not be in controversy. This island was
purchased by the Crown in 1910 from private hands and was immediately
surveyed into lots with established boundaries, and the lots sold out to private
persons. The original survey maps still exist. Each lot is numbered, and the
boundaries exactly known. The original and subsequent purchasers should have
4
no difficulty in establishing their boundaries and their titles. I am satisfied,
however, that many of the purchasers from the Crown have never received their
deeds, and that in Union Island too, as on mainland St Vincent, the absence of a
deed is no proof of lack of title, nor is the holding of a deed by an original owner
any proof of present day title to a parcel of land.
[7] The overwhelming evidence, which I accept, is that Mrs Annie Adams and, after
her, her sons have been in possession of the parcel of land in question for over 70
years before the Crown took possession of it and constructed a Fisheries Complex
on it. To itemise some of the evidence which I accept:
(1) The Revenue Office in Union Island is situate across the street from the
parcel of land. The tax receipts for land taxes on Union Island bear a
number that exactly locates the parcel of land for which it is paid. The
Plaintiffs produced testimony and tax receipts to establish that since at
least about the year 1948 they have been paying land taxes for the parcel
of land. The receipts in evidence in this case relate to the parcel of land in
question and none other. Not a single government officer from the tax
office in Union Island past or present came to dispute the claim of the
Plaintiffs to have paid land tax since at least 1948 for the parcel of land in
dispute. I have no doubt that the revenue officers were all well aware of
the ownership of the parcel of land by the heirs of Annie Adams when the
Government set out to construct the Fisheries Complex on the land in the
year 1993.
(2) Very importantly, underlying everything else, was the direct evidence of
the witnesses Sylvester Raymond Cadette, and George Brown, both with
Union Island connections, who knew Annie Adams and her occupation
and reputed ownership of the parcel in question over many years. George
Brown, in particular, may have been 82 years of age, but his memory was
crystal clear. Both of these witnesses were unshaken in their testimony of
the undisputed and unbroken ownership, possession and use of the
5
parcel of land in dispute by Annie Adams and after her death by her two
sons.
(3) After the death of Annie Adams in 1979, her sons were in possession of
the parcel of land. It was well known and accepted in Union Island that
they owned the land. When lawyer Emmanuel Fatima Adams, now
deceased, wished to do a business on the land, he entered into an
agreement in 1986 with Abraham Adams, Annie’s son who resided in the
USA, to lease it. Emmanuel Fatima Adams subsequently built a building
on the land on which he operated a bar and variety store. That building
was still on the land when Government came to build on it in 1993.
Government paid the heirs of lawyer Emmanuel Fatima Adams
compensation for the value of the building and they dismantled the
building and took it away. The relevant government officers must have
enquired and discovered how lawyer Adams came to be allowed to put a
building on the land, even assuming they had not known before who the
owner of the land was. The Chief Surveyor, who was the only witness
testifying for the Crown, admitted knowing that Annie Adams and her heirs
had some interest in the land, but said he had assumed they held only a
leasehold interest. But, the tax rolls of Union Island would have shown
otherwise. You do not pay land and house tax in St Vincent and the
Grenadines for land you rent, only for land you own. Those tax rolls have
recently gone up in flames when the Revenue Office burned down in
1995. The records could not be produced at the trial. I am satisfied that
they existed at the time of the entry by Government onto the lands to
construct the building in 1993, and that the records, if they had been
available, would have showed the Heirs of Annie Adams to hold title to the
land in dispute.
(4) The Chief Surveyor produced an original survey plan of 1912 for that part
of Union Island that included the land in dispute. This plan showed the
ownership of the parcel of land, originally known as Parcel A, which was
then much larger than it now is, to be in the Crown. On the plan, the
6
entire Parcel A was marked as being owned by the Crown. The Chief
Surveyor admitted that in the years since 1912 other parts of the Parcel A
had been sold by the Crown to private owners. Their purchases had not
been marked off on the plan in evidence. The plan still showed the
original ownership of all of Parcel A as being in the Crown. The plan was
worthless to prove who at this present time or at any time subsequently to
the year 1912 owned any part of Parcel A. A current working map from
the Lands and Surveys Department showing current ownership of lands in
that part of Union Island might have been more helpful in this matter. In a
negative sense, all that this plan went to show was that the claim of the
Plaintiffs to have acquired title to the land sometime after 1926 but not to
have received a deed to it was not disproved.
[8] The Plaintiffs wrote to the Attorney General, copied to the Chief Surveyor and
others, immediately upon the Crown going into possession of the land in dispute in
1993. Despite the fact that the Crown officers were well aware that the Crown did
not have clear title to the land, they persisted in constructing the Fisheries
Complex without negotiating with the Plaintiffs. No doubt, the project was an
important one for the Government and for the people of Union Island. But, the
relevant government officers took the risk that the now elderly sons of Annie
Adams, residing overseas as they both are, would not trouble to pursue their
rights. Unfortunately for those officers and for the Government of St Vincent and
the Grenadines, the sons of Annie Adams have pursued their rights. The court
finds that the parcel of land in question belongs to the Plaintiffs, and the
Government will have to pay compensation to the Plaintiffs for its wrongful seizure
of their land for the construction of the Fisheries Complex.
[9] The amount of compensation is not the issue before me today. The Plaintiffs
brought some evidence that the parcel in dispute had a 1993 value of
$871,200.00, and they have asked for $2,000,000.00 compensation. I am not
satisfied with the quality of that evidence. The Crown disputes that valuation and
7
suggests it could be a quarter of the amount claimed by the Plaintiffs. I am not
satisfied with the quality of that evidence either. There is also some reason to
believe that the Fisheries Complex is built partly on the Plaintiff’s portion of Parcel
A, and partly on the Crown’s foreshore adjacent to Parcel A. The Plaintiff’s have
no interest in the foreshore, and are not entitled to compensation for any part of
the Complex that has been placed on the foreshore. A survey still has to be done
to discover exactly what it is that the Plaintiffs own on Parcel A. The question of
damages will be a matter for a subsequent trial, if the parties do not come to some
agreement on compensation. I have considered making an order for possession
in favour of the Plaintiffs as requested by the amendment to the Summons granted
at the stage of addresses. Such a remedy seems at this time a bit drastic. If the
Crown does not do the proper thing, and promptly commence proceedings to
acquire the land and to compensate the Plaintiffs for their unlawfully confiscated
property, an order for possession may be at a future time an appropriate wake up
call.
[10] There will be judgment for the Plaintiffs as follows:
(1) The Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that they are the lawful owners
of one acre of land more or less situate at Clifton Union Island part of
Parcel A on the official Survey Plan of 1912.
(2) The Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for trespass to be assessed if not
agreed.
(3) The Plaintiffs are entitled to an amount of compensation for the value of
the land wrongfully taken away from them as of the date of payment of
compensation at an amount to be assessed if not agreed.
(4) The Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs to be taxed if not agreed.
(5) Liberty to apply
8
I D MITCHELL, QC
High Court Judge