Re Beneby, Wilfred

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Adams, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 October 1986
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Docket Number: Equity Side No. 254 of 1964
• Date: 16 October 1986

Supreme Court

Adams, J.

Equity Side No. 254 of 1964

Re: Beneby, Wilfred

Appearances:

Mr. Alpin Russell for Mavis Collie, Geneva Francis & Beatrice Deveaux.

Mr. James M. Thompson for Albert Forbes (an adverse claimant).

Statute - Interpretation — Quieting Title Act, s. 7(10 — Whether the court could order that a notice by virtue of s. 7(1) of the Act be directed to the applicants — Court found that no order could be made since there was no one who had the right as petitioner to serve the notices as required by the Act.

Adams, J.

1 On 17th February 1986 an application was filed by Mavis Collie, Geneva Francis and Beatrice Deveaux that a notice under and by virtue of section 7(1) of the Quieting Titles Act be directed to them as they appeared to have claims adverse to or inconsistent with the petitioner's claim in respect of the land which was the subject matter of the petition filed herein.

2 On 10th June 1986 an adverse claimant Albert Forbes applied for an order (a) that the said application be struck out for want of prosecution, (b) that there was no evidence which appeared to the court to warrant a notice under section 7(1) of the Quieting Titles Act, (c) that the court lacked jurisdiction to make the order prayed and (d) that provision be made for the costs of this application.

3 Learned counsel for the adverse claimant Albert Forbes, Mr. James M. Thompson, submitted that the court had no jurisdiction and that the application was an abuse of the process of the court. He said that the petition was filed in 1964, that an order for consolidation was made in 1965 and on 14th December 1965 Mae Harris was struck out as petitioner and Wilfred Beneby was substituted as petitioner. He submitted that a claim must be inconsistent with that of the petitioner and no evidence was disclosed in the applicant's affidavit to warrant interference. He said that in these proceedings there was no petitioner.

4 Mr. Alpin Russell submitted that Mr. Thompson was asking the court to make a ruling on facts, which could not be done at this stage. He said that the applicants obtained their conveyance in 1979 and the petitioner was not interested in their part of the land. The applicants had filed adverse claims out of time.

5 The function of the judge under the Quieting Titles Act is to conduct an investigation into all the facts and I consider it is premature for me to rule on facts. It does not appear to me,...