The Christian Mission v Jones

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 October 1978
• Neutral Citation: BB 1978 HC 62
• Docket Number: No. 790 of 1974
• Date: 19 October 1978
• Court: High Court (Barbados)

High Court

Williams, J.

No. 790 of 1974

The Christian Mission

and

Jones

Mr. C.E. Lashley for the plaintiff.

Mr. E.D. Mottley for the defendant.

Real Property - Ownership

Williams, J.

1 The Christian Mission has documents of title to land in Tudor Street, Bridgetown, containing about 21,403 sq. ft. The essence of the present case is to determine the extent, if any, to which the rights of the Mission have been eroded by the provisions of the Limitation and Prescription Act Cap. 232. For Mr. Jones, the defendant, has pleaded the statute and is alleging a possessory title to a substantial portion of the land of the Mission, amounting to 5,302 sq. ft.

2 According to the Statement of Claim, on many dates the defendant wrongfully entered on the plaintiff's land and interfered with the plaintiff's use thereof; and the defendant threatened and intended unless restrained by the court, to repeat the acts complained of. The plaintiff's claim is for (a) a declaration that it is and was at all material times the owner of the land (b) the defendant is not entitled to enter or to remain on the land (c) an injunction and (d) damages for trespass.

3 The defendant's case is that, as to 5,302 sq. ft, of the land, he is and has been in possession thereof since 1941, without paying rent to anyone. He is therefore saying that, as to that portion, the plaintiff's claim is barred by the Limitation and Prescription Act Cap. 232 and that its right and title to that portion of the land has been extinguished. He counterclaims for (1) a declaration that he is beneficially entitled the portion of the land 5,302 sq. ft. in area by reason of his long possession thereof and that his possessory title is good as against the plaintiff and (2) an injunction.

4 The plaintiff in its reply denied that the defendant was in possession of the 5,302 sq. ft, of land or that its title was barred. In its defence to the defendant's counterclaim, the plaintiff pleaded that if the defendant was at any time in possession of the 5,302 sq. ft. of land as claimed, that this possession was with its leave and/or licence; also that the defendant was not at any time in exclusive possession of the portion of land claimed by him.

5 The plaintiff raised two other issues in its defence to the defendant's counterclaim (1) continuous enjoyment by the plaintiff and its predecessors in title from time immemorial of the portion of land claimed by the defendant for the more convenient occupation of the remainder of the plaintiff's land and (2) enjoyment as of right and without interruption by the plaintiff and its predecessors in title, for a period of forty years and more, of easements, rights and privileges over the portion of land claimed by the defendant, in title of the remainder of the plaintiff's land.

6 These two last mentioned issues can be disposed of without further ado. They have no relevance to the circumstances of the present case. In so far as the plaintiff exercised any rights over the portion land claimed by the defendant, those rights were exercised by virtue of the ownership of that land and not for the benefit or in title of any other land of the plaintiff.

7 Turning to the evidence, the story had its beginning in the early forties when Superintendent Leon Fitz Gerald Hoyte allowed the defendant to do car repairs in the Mission's garage. There is conflicting evidence as to the conditions under which Mr. Jones was allowed to move on to the premises. Mr. Jones speaks of a monthly rent of $8 which was collected for a brief period. Mr. Sandiford does not speak of any arrangement for rent. According to him the defendant asked for permission to stay in the Tabernacle garage until he got somewhere else to go. However this case must be determined in my opinion not on any narrow view as to whether Mr. Jones began as a tenant or a licensee of the garage. All the circumstances over the years must be looked at.

8 As time went by Mr. Jones gradually widened the range of his physical domain. He was unwittingly assisted by the factional dispute which had broken out in the church. While the church elders were disputing the leadership, he was building his garage business. He had begun to use the Tabernacle yard for the accommodation of his vehicles. Even a notice to quit the premises which was served by Mr. Thomas in 1946–47 was ignored. And Mr. Jones went into the fifties, unevicted, his vehicle repair business still based in the garage, with the yard in use for the accommodation of his vehicles,

9 The factional dispute in the church continued in the fifties and in this period Mr. Jones' de facto expansion proceeded apace. An incident of 1959 – 1960 is significant in at least one respect, as illustrating the intention which accompanied Mr. Jones' de facto occupation. The incident occurred when a group of the churchmen attempted to storm the Christian Mission's office building — which contained the garage occupied by Mr. Jones.

10 A word about this building. It originally housed the offices the General Superintendent, the room where the printing press was kept, the garage and, to the front, other rooms which had been let to various trades. The offices had become disused apparently after a dispute between Reverend Larrier and Mr. Jones ended in violence. The printing press had been sold and Mr. Jones had arbitrarily taken over that room as his living quarters. And Mr. Jones had also begun to let out the rooms to the front.

11 As Mr. Sandiford said in his testimony, “None of the...