Ricardo F. Pratt v Henrique Baptista

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Mr. Justice Smith, JA
• Judgment Date: 08 March 2024
• Neutral Citation: BS 2024 CA 33
• Docket Number: SCCivApp. No. 189 of 2022
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bahamas)

BETWEEN

Ricardo F. Pratt (In his capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Ruel Pratt)

Appellant

and

Henrique Baptista

1 ^st Respondent

and

Lesley Baptista

2 ^nd Respondent

BEFORE:

The Honourable Madam Justice Crane-Scott, JA

The Honourable Mr. Justice Evans, JA

The Honourable Mr. Justice Smith, JA

SCCivApp. No. 189 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Civil Appeal — Quieting of Titles Act (Ch 393) — Order 27 Rule 3 Rules of the Supreme Court 1978 — Order or Judgment on Admissions — Whether there were Admissions

The appellant filed an action in the Supreme Court seeking to set aside a grant of Certificate of Title which vested certain land in the Respondents pursuant to the Quieting of Titles Act (Ch 393). He then applied pursuant to Order 27 Rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1978, for judgment on certain admissions and other interlocutory orders. The judge heard the application and dismissed it. The appellant now appeals the dismissal of his application on the main ground that the “Learned Judge misdirected herself and was plainly wrong and or erred in law with regard to Order 27 Rule 3 of the Rules of Supreme Court 1978”. The court heard the parties, gave an oral judgment and promised to give written reasons.

Held: appeal dismissed; the Appellant is ordered to pay the Respondents' costs of the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.

Ellis v Allen [1914] 1 Ch 904

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Ricardo F Pratt appeared Pro Se

Mr. Christopher Gouthro, Counsel for Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION

Judgment delivered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Smith, JA

1 On the 7 ^th December 2023, we heard the appeal in this matter and Crane- Scott JA delivered a short oral decision. By that decision, we dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the Respondents' costs of the appeal. We had also promised to give short written reasons for our decision, and we do so now.

2 The Appellant brought this action against the Respondents. In this action the Appellant's main claim was to set aside the grant of a Certificate of Title which vested certain land in Grand Bahamas in the Respondents pursuant to the Quieting of Titles Act (Ch 393).

3 The Appellant then brought an application for, inter alia, judgment on certain admissions which, he alleged, were made by the Respondents. That application by way of a summons, was made pursuant to Order 27 Rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1978.

4 Justice Petra M. Hanna-Adderley (the Trial Judge), heard this application and dismissed it in a written decision dated 29 ^th December 2022.

5 The Appellant now appeals the decision of the trial judge.

6 We are of the view that the trial judge's decision was correct, or at the very least, was not plainly wrong and we too dismiss this appeal.

Order 27 Rule 3

7 The relevant part of Order 27 Rule 3 provides that:

“ Where admissions of fact are made by a party to a cause or matter either by his pleadings or otherwise, any other party to the cause or matter may apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon those admissions he is entitled to…”

8 The trial judge noted that under this rule, and ever since the decision in Ellis v Allen [1914] 1 Ch 904, any such admission must be in the clearest terms.

9 In the present matter, the Appellant alleged that the Respondents made admissions in (A) their Pleaded Defence and (B) their Statement of Facts which would entitle him to judgment.

(A) Alleged Admissions in the Defence

10 The Appellant alleges that there are admissions in paragraph 5 and 6 of the Defence which entitle him to judgment.

11 (a) Paragraph 5 of the Defence merely states that “ Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is admitted.”

Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is a mere recital of the Defendants' (Respondents) claim to the land which was granted to them under the Quieting of Titles Act. For completeness, I set out paragraph 5 of the Appellant's Statement of Claim:-

“ 5. On 27 ^th October, 2010, the 1 ^st Defendant and the 2 ^nd Defendant (“the Defendants”) filed an Adverse Claim in Supreme Court Equity Action No. 2010/CLE/qui/FP/00101 claiming that they were the fee simple owners of Lot 11, Block 3 Fortune Cay Subdivision (“Lot No. 11”) by virtue of an Indenture of Conveyance dated 14 ^th June, 2007 made between Port Group. Limited and Henrique JS and Lesley Baptista (‘the Baptista Conveyance’) and that Lot No.11 was a portion of the 1.95 acres of land situate at Bootle Cove.”

12 By admitting their claim to the land in question, under paragraph 5 of the Defence,...