Caesar Thomas Claimant/Appellant v Richard Stoutt Thomas Benjamin Stoutt Victorene Joseph Rosamund Malone Walter Stoutt Claimants/Respondents

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Virgin Islands)
• Judge: ST. BERNARD J.A.,CHIEF JUSTICE
• Judgment Date: 14 February 1977
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1977] ECSC J0214-2
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 of 1973
• Date: 14 February 1977

[1977] ECSC J0214-2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 of 1973

Between:

Caesar Thomas

Claimant/Appellant

and

Richard Stoutt

Thomas Benjamin Stoutt

Victorene Joseph

Rosamund Malone

Walter Stoutt

Claimants/Respondents

L.W. Barker for Claimant/Appellant

McW. Todman for Claimants/Respondents

ST. BERNARD J.A.

1 In a Land Adjudication dispute arising out of claims submitted by the appellant and the respondents to title to the same parcel of land, the Land Adjudication Officer after a hearing of the dispute and finally determining the issue on the 12th October, 1972 in favour of the respondents was petitioned under Section 20 of the Land Adjudication Ordinance, 1970, as amended by section 5 of the Land Adjudication amendment Ordinance, 1971 (No. 13 of 1971) for a rehearing of the dispute on the ground that there was fresh evidence on behalf of the appellants. No objection was taken to this rehearing at the time as it appears that the parties believed quite wrongly, that the Adjudication Officer had jurisdiction. At the rehearing the Adjudication Officer reversed his findings partly in the first decision and although this was in favour of the appellant he has appealed.

2 Section 20 of the Ordinance under which the Adjudication Officer purported to act gives no authority for such a rehearing. That section gives the person named in or affected by the adjudication record or demarcation map which he considers inaccurate or incomplete in any respect or who is aggrieved by any act or omission of the Demarcation Officer or Survey Officer a right to petition the Adjudication Officer and has nothing to do with the rehearing of a dispute as to ownership of land.

3 Although the act of the Adjudication Officer in setting aside his first order may be a nullity, the whole procedure adopted was so irregular and unsatisfactory that, in my view, in the interest of justice, the whole dispute should be remitted for a new trial before another Adjudication Officer. I would so order.

4 (E.L. St. Bernard)

5 JUSTICE OF APPEAL.

6 I agree

7 (N.A. Peterkin)

8 JUSTICE OF APPEAL

9 I also agree

10 (Maurice Davis)

CHIEF JUSTICE

[1977] ECSC J0214-2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 of 1973

Between:

Caesar Thomas

Claimant/Appellant

and

Richard Stoutt

Thomas Benjamin Stoutt

Victorene Joseph

Rosamund Malone

Walter Stoutt

Claimants/Respondents

L.W. Barker for Claimant/Appellant

McW. Todman for Claimants/Respondents

ST. BERNARD J.A.

1 In a Land Adjudication dispute arising out of claims submitted by the appellant and the respondents...