Eric Gregoria Vasquez v James Ram Logan
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | ‘Alexander, J.’ |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM No. CV 671 of 2022 |
CLAIM No. CV 671 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE
Mr. Hubert Elrington SC and Mr. Norman C. Rodriguez for the Claimants
Mr. Ian Gray for the First Defendant
Mr. Rene Montero for the Second Defendant
Mr. Israel Alpuche for the Interested Parties
The second defendant in this matter filed a notice of application on 10 th July 2023 seeking an order that the claim against him be struck out and that the claim itself be dismissed in its entirety. The second defendant states that though he has been sued as Jason Wa, his legal name is Zhike Wu (Mr. Wu). Mr. Wu claims that the present proceedings are not properly brought before the court, contain deficient pleadings, show no cause of action against him and ought to be struck out. In his application, he sets out several grounds that would justify an order being made against the claimants (together the Vasquez) to strike out their claim, including that they have failed to comply with the rules for bringing their claim under the Civil Procedure Rules, 2005 (CPR). The main thrusts of Mr. Wu's application are that the non-compliances with the rules were untenable and ought not to be overlooked or sanctioned by the court but, also, that the claim in its present state is unsustainable.
Mr. Ram Logan did not join with Mr. Wu in the application to strike out but filed a defence on 15 th December 2022, in which he disputed the Vasquez's claim to prescriptive title to the disputed lands.
For multiple reasons, I am compelled to grant the application to the extent as ordered below. This matter presents a muddle of procedural errors and poor pleadings, with the Vasquez being unable to show a viable cause of action against Mr. Wu or to even properly set out the reliefs being sought against him. Erroneous filings of claims and applications against various parties saw the Vasquez having to withdraw their claim against the interested parties (sued initially as defendants). The Vasquez also withdrew an urgent injunction 1 against all parties, including the interested parties, but re-filed an amended notice for urgent interim injunction on 14 th September 2023 against the defendants. By this amended notice of injunction, the name Jason Wa was replaced with that of Zhike Wu, without first seeking permission from the court or obtaining any order for amendment, given that the matter was already before the court for case management. I have since issued the order to amend to reflect the correct name of Mr. Wu, as stated in his acknowledgement of service. The Vasquez also filed an application on 20 th September 2023 to take up judgment in default of defence against Mr. Wu, whose defence was filed late on 28 th January 2023 2 but not recognized as properly filed by the Vasquez. Only the application to strike out was fully ventilated before me, as its disposition could determine the other two applications.
I have set out below the reasons for granting the application.
The property in dispute is Block 207 HA and 207 HB on the Stann Creek Valley Road near Mile 11, Stann Creek District shown on Plan No. 97 of 1960 (together ‘Block 207’). Block 207 contains some 20 acres of land, and is at times referred to, for purpose of distinction, as the front portion and the back portion. Because of the conflicting claims and the poor pleadings, it is necessary to give a full and proper account of the events that transpired leading up to the present proceedings as well as of the pleadings.
The Vasquez claim that they are the owners of the whole of Block 207, having been in open, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession in excess of 12 years, without the permission of any person lawfully entitled to such possession. They claim that they were initially gifted a piece or portion of Block 207 by the deceased Charles Card by Deed of Gift dated 6 th October 1998 and had built their matrimonial home on it (allegedly since 1986, a date that clearly precedes the gift). 3 The second claimant, Mrs. Carlotta Guadalupe Vasquez, was the goddaughter of Mrs. Rosilla Albertha Card and the primary caregiver for the Cards during their lifetimes. After the demise of the Cards, the Vasquez looked after the deceased Charles Card's estate by paying for the annual rent, maintenance and general upkeep of the remainder of Block 207. They have entered into occupation and been in open and uninterrupted possession of the whole of Block 207 since the demise of the deceased Charles Card on 31 st July 2002. Sometime in 2003, Mr. Ram Logan entered into occupation of a portion of Block 207. 4 The Vasquez also pleaded that Mr. Ram Logan entered on the land in 2006, 5 claiming that the deceased Charles Card had sold him a portion of Block 207 but no Deed of
The Vasquez claim further that Mr. Ram Logan fraudulently and dishonestly obtained a Grant in the estate of the deceased Charles Card by accretion. The proper applicant for the Grant was Mrs. Card, who died a year and seven months after the deceased Charles Card on 13 th March 2004. Mrs. Card did not apply for administration of the estate of the deceased Charles Card so her interest sounded in equity and not in law. There is no clear pleading on what transpired thereafter save that Mr. Ram Logan fraudulently and dishonestly acquired title and had applied for the Grant.
In their pleadings, the Vasquez claimed that, in fact, they were in simultaneous occupation and possession of their piece of land given to them by Deed of Gift and the remainder of Block 207 during the lifetime of the Cards, and continuing to the present time. Mr. Ram Logan has never been the lawful holder of a legal title to or a beneficial interest of the whole or any portion of Block 207. They were the only ones lawfully entitled to the whole of Block 207.
Mr. Ram Logan's defence is that at all material times, he was the trustee and administrator of the estate of the deceased Charles Card who died intestate on 31 st July 2002, survived by his late wife, and without leaving any issues. He had the permission of the deceased Charles Card to assist with the day to day operations of the property including its maintenance and management. Mr. Ram Logan claims that the Vasquez are vexatious litigants, without locus standi to bring the claim or obtain the reliefs. The Vasquez always had constructive knowledge that they were not entitled to prescriptive title and, therefore, the claim was vexatious and an abuse of process. Despite this defence, Mr. Ram Logan did not file an application to strike out the claim and did not join in the application of Mr. Wu.
The Vasquez seek a declaration of prescriptive title to the whole land, based on their uninterrupted possession for over 12 years, and orders for recovery of possession of the land. They also seek revocation of a Grant of Administration dated 2 nd May 2012 in the estate of Charles Card (‘the Grant’), rectification of the Land Register to remove Mr. Ram Logan's name and replace it with the names of the Vasquez, and general and special damages for trespass as against Mr. Ram Logan. In their submissions, they sought to extend their claim for relief for trespass also to Mr. Wu (despite its absence in their prayer).
The Vasquez also ask for an order restraining Mr. Ram Logan, as administrator, from selling, leasing, or in any other way, alienating the properties in the estate. The Vasquez also seek an order for Mr. Ram Logan to provide a list of all persons to whom he has alienated the properties belonging to the estate of the deceased Charles Card, the amount of monies obtained from the proceeds of sale, lease or other alienation and the location of the monies. They also ask for Mr. Ram Logan to be restrained from operating any financial accounts (bank or credit union) in which he deposited all or any part of the proceeds obtained from his alienation of assets in the estate of Charles Card. The Vasquez ask for a declaration that all actions done by Mr. Ram Logan, as administrator, be deemed null and void and of no effect. Therefore, the reliefs being sought against Mr. Ram Logan are clearly set out or discernible from the pleadings.
Regarding Mr. Wu, the pleadings are somewhat murky and/or not clearly set out. The prayer in the claim did not identify what reliefs were being sought against Mr. Wu. I, therefore, had to painstakingly comb through the originating documents to gain an understating of the case, if any, that was advanced against Mr. Wu. The requirement that pleadings be clear is not only for the benefit of a defendant who must know the case he has to answer but for the benefit of the court, to know the issues before it and to enable it to effectively and efficiently manage the case. There was no mention of Mr. Wu, as the named second defendant, in the statement of claim filed in these proceedings, which is usually where the claim against a defendant is set out for him to answer.
The claim form states, however, that Mr. Wu entered, remained upon and attempted to take possession of the front portion of Block 207, without any legal authority. Mr. Wu has subdivided the property, denying the Vasquez their lawful peaceful enjoyment and occupation of their property. Mr. Wu is a trespasser in law. In the claim, the Vasquez seem to be making a case out against Mr. Wu for trespass by ‘ interfering with and denying their right to enjoyment, having...
To continue reading
Request your trial