Althea Knowles v Monique Rolle
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Judge | Madam Justice G. Diane Stewart |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bahamas) |
| Docket Number | 2018 CLE/gen/00128 |
and
The Hon. Madam Justice G. Diane Stewart
2018 CLE/gen/00128
IN THE SUPREME COURT
Mr. Carlton Martin for the Plaintiffs
Mr. Wayne Munroe KC and Mr. Ryszard Humes for the Defendants
The Plaintiff seeks damages and part performance from the Defendants for the breach of a partially written and oral contract in respect to the compromise of the sale of a piece and parcel of land situate on Knowles Avenue (“the Property”) having the following dimensions: ALL THAT piece parcel or lot of land situate on the south side of Harold Road in the Western District of the island of New Providence and bounded on the West by the land in possession of one Knowles and running thereon 250 feet on the East by land the property of Granville Nicholls and a Public Road and running thereon 250 feet and on the North by land said to be the property of the Vendor (Daniel Forbes) and running thereon 250 feet together with the appurtenances belonging thereunto. The Defendants have rejected that there was a compromise with regard to the land in question as suggested by the Plaintiff. The land in question was set out in an agreed plan dated September 2009.
By this action the Plaintiff's claim the following relief against the Defendants:-
-
i) An order that he said compromise/agreement be specifically enforced
-
ii) Declaration that under the said compromise the firm of Munroe & Associated is entitled to its costs paid by the Plaintiffs out of the sale of a specific portion of their vacant land,
-
iii) Damages for breach of agreement
-
iv) Further or other relief and
-
v) Costs
The Plaintiffs allege that by an agreement dated the 3 rd April 2017 and replicated again on the 27 th July 2017 and executed on 2 nd August 2017 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, the parties agreed to compromise the litigation existing between them in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal with respect to the Property. The express terms of the agreement were set out in a letter which stated:-
“I, Rodger Knowles who resides on property Harold Road and Knowles Avenue, son and representative of Althea Knowles another named siblings Genesta Knowles-Williams, Gregory Knowles, Kendal Knowles, Deborah Knowles-McCoy, have come to an agreement with Monique Rolle and children of Irene Virginia Forbes-Rolle, all adjacent properties next to where the apartments are situated, also the portion of land where my mother Althea Knowles presently resides, upon her demise goes back to the estate of Irene Virginia Forbes-Rolle, and her children.
Upon agreement, Monique Rolle and the other children of Irene Virginia Forbes-Rolle, Michael, Eleanor, Maxwell Rolle, that we have all decided to put the past behind and look forward to the future….”
The Plaintiffs submitted that implied terms of the compromise were:-
-
a) The Plaintiffs and Defendants will pay their own costs of the litigation of the Supreme Court action and the Court of Appeal
-
b) The Defendants will execute to the Plaintiffs or as they may direct a conveyance or conveyances by way of further assurances of all their right, title and interest in the land retained by the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs would do likewise with respect to the land going to the Defendants subject to the life estate of Althea Knowles. Each side shall pay their own costs connected with the conveyances.
The first named Plaintiff, Ms. Althea Knowles (Ms. Knowles) orally agreed to purchase the Property from Mr. Daniel Forbes for £750.00 and paid an initial down payment of £325.00 in 1966 and thereafter the remainder was paid in 1967. After payment was complete, the Plaintiffs claim that a conveyance transferring the Property to Ms. Knowles from Mr. Forbes was duly executed and instructions were given to stamp and record the said conveyance but it was not stamped or lodged for recording until 14 th February 1975. The Plaintiff allege that Ms. Knowles enjoyed peaceful occupation of the Property from the time of the initial down payment until her death.
Prior to the said conveyance being stamped and recorded, Daniel Forbes devised the property to Irene Virginia Rolle, his daughter, by a Will dated 17 th April 1968.
In 2006, Ms. Knowles became aware of the Second Defendant's desire to evict her from the property after threatening legal action against her. Ms. Knowles commenced action #1812 of 2007 in the Supreme Court seeking damages for breach of contract (“The First Action”). However, the Defendants were unable to admit orally that there was any contract between Ms. Knowles and Daniel Forbes as she would not have been privy to any alleged agreement. The Defendant did not deny that Ms. Knowles enjoyed peaceful occupation of the property but denied that the Plaintiffs were entitled to damages for breach of contract or specific performance.
The Defendants counterclaimed in the First Action seeking damages for trespass and vacant possession.
Judgment in the First Action was delivered in favour of the Defendants dismissing the claim of Ms. Knowles and upholding the counterclaim of the Defendants granting them entitlement to possession of the land. The Plaintiffs appealed of the judgment (“The Appeal”). When the parties appeared before the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, she ordered the Appellants to prepare and file the record of appeal within thirty days and pay a deposit security by bond for due prosecution of the appeal. The Appellants did not comply with the Registrar's orders and did not file a Notice of Motion for an extension of time to comply with the order and the Appeal was dismissed. Efforts were made to seek conditional leave to appeal the dismissal to the Privy Council.
In September 2009, the Defendants hired a tractor to clear down the back portion of the Property. This resulted in the Defendants discovering that the Plaintiff had erected a fence which the Defendants had removed to continue to exert her ownership over the property. In or about 2010, the Defendants hired and instructed a surveyor on three occasions to place boundary markings on the property as there were potential purchasers. The Plaintiffs refused to allow the Defendants to place boundary markers on the property and the Defendants had to get the police involved as they claimed the Plaintiffs had become uncontrollable.
The Parties had meetings which the Plaintiffs maintain led to a compromise as set out above. As a result of such compromise the Plaintiffs withdrew their application for leave to appeal the dismissal.
The Defendants requested that the Plaintiffs pay their legal fees in the amount of ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.00). After consideration, the Plaintiffs agreed to pay the same by setting aside a portion of the land at the southwest of the retained property and immediately north of the fence and the land upon which Ms. Knowles lived, also being immediately south of the road running east and west into the retained land.
On 17 th January 2018, the Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants repudiated the entire compromise, inclusive of the agreement between themselves and the Plaintiffs for the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants legal fees. As a result there was a breach of the compromise by the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs allege that at all material times they were willing and able to meet the terms of the compromise and to settle the costs from the sale of the said land in the manner described.
Rodger Knowles, the son of Ms. Knowles averred that after his mother commenced Supreme Court Action No. 01812 of 2007, which was dismissed and possession given to the Defendant there were settlement discussions between himself on behalf of his mother Ms. Knowles and his siblings and the Defendant. He conceded that the judgment of Barnett J., covered his property which he had brought from Daniel Forbes Jr., the uncle of the Defendant. He also accepted that all of the property was owned by the Estate of Irene Rolle.
He was unable to pay the final payment for his land and that he was never called on by the Defendants to pay any money or to vacate the property. By letter dated the 11 th July 2017 his sister Deborah Knowles McCoy, wrote a ‘To Whom It May Concern’ letter to inform Ms. Rolle that she was willing to relinquish her property to Ms. Rolle. On the 2 nd August 2017, the parties, without advice from their respective Counsel, entered into a written agreement to settle the First Action and the Appeal. On the 17 th January 2018 the Plaintiffs withdrew the Appeal.
Under the settlement agreement, the Plaintiffs, except for Mrs. Knowles McCoy were to keep their portions of the Property which they had developed and upon the death of Ms. Knowles, her portion of the land would revert to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs highlighted the land as being behind the fence and at the back of the apartment building on the Property. The southern portion of the Property was bounded by a chain link fence. However, after the execution of the agreement, the Defendants cleared down the southern portion of adjacent land.
The Defendants' failure to honour the settlement agreement resulted in the commencement of this action to have the compromise specifically enforced. The written compromise agreement was prepared by the Defendants. At the Court of Appeal, the Defendants attorney raised the issue of costs. The Defendant's attorney discussed the suggestion that Mrs. Knowles McCoy's portion should be sold for ninety thousand dollars to settle his costs. An effort was made to find a buyer for this property.
Prior to the commencement of this action and after the withdrawal...
To continue reading
Request your trial