Padron v The Minister of Natural Resources et Al
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Young, J. |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 2015 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
| Docket Number | 671 of 2012 |
| Date | 19 February 2015 |
Supreme Court
Young, J.
671 of 2012
Mr. Said Musa, SC for the claimant.
Mr. Nigel Hawke Deputy Solicitor and Ms. Marcia Mohabir for the defendants.
Contract Law - Breach of Contract — Specific Performance — Open Contract — Whether the claimant had title to the fee simple and was obligated to pass the title that had devolved upon him where there was no evidence that the claimant could not transfer the property as the property was vested in his parent — Consideration of Hiern v. Mill (1806) 13 Ves 114 at 122 — Contract for sale of land — Whether the memorandum exhibited was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 55(1) of the Law of Property Act — Whether the claimant had shown that the signatory was the actual authorised agent of the parties to be charged — Consideration of Howell v. Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. [1951] A.C. 837 and AG for Ceylon v. AD Silva [1953] A.C. 461 — Whether the claimant performed a sufficient act of part performance which would permit parole evidence to be allowed to prove the precise terms of the contract where no evidence that the property was owned by the claimant and no evidence was adduced to show that the Government took possession of the property — Consideration of Steadman v. Steadman [1976] A.C. 536 at 540 — Claim dismissed — Sections 3 and 55(1) of the Law of Property Act, Cap.190 — Section 2,3,5,6 and 13 of the National Lands Act.
The claimant says that on or around 23rd June, 2010, he entered into an oral agreement with the first and second defendants. The essence of that agreement seems to be that in exchange for 18 acres of land at the entrance to San Felipe Village, (which was to be used for village expansion) the claimant would receive 100 acres of national agricultural land. The claimant further says that based on this agreement he transferred the said 18 acres to the Government of Belize.
He even assisted the San Felipe Village Council in distributing land to villagers for house lots (as certified by a letter from the Chairman of the San Felipe Village Council). He was later told by the area representative that the second defendant had agreed to grant him 100 acres of land in the Sierra de Agua area. He decided to put 50 acres in his name and the remaining 50 of those acres in his son's name.
They both subsequently applied for and were granted permission by the second defendant and his office, to survey 50 acres each of national land in the Sierra De Agua Central Registration Section. The Survey was conducted sometime around August 6th, 2011. The claimant thereafter went into possession of the two fifty acre parcels and expended commendable sums of money to clear and improve same. He remains in occupation to the present. Counsel for the defendant, during the hearing of an application for an injunction, having given an undertaking to the court that nothing would be done to deprive the claimant of possession pending the outcome of this claim.
Sometime around 14th August, 2012 the claimant became aware that another person had been granted permission to survey the same two 50 acre parcels of land. Through a letter from his Attorney, he raised the matter of the transfer agreement with the Minister of Lands and Agriculture. On 22nd August, 2012 he received a response that the matter would be investigated and he would be informed appropriately. He continued to occupy and clear the land. Thereafter, on two occasions during a two week period, he was arrested and detained for several hours for allegedly trespassing on national land. He was never charged. He claims that the agreement has been breached and he is being unlawfully deprived of his right and interest in the said 100 acres.
He seeks the following reliefs:
“(1) Specific Performance of an Agreement for an exchange of land namely 100 acres in the Sierra De Agua Central Registration Section parcel No. 48 Block 13 Orange Walk District.
(2) An injunction to restrain the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from leasing, transferring title or in any other way depriving the claimant of his right and interest in the said 100 acre parcel of land.
(3) Damages and interest thereon.
(4) Costs.”
The claimant stated that the third defendant was joined in the claim because in some way she too was attempting to dispossess him of 100 acres. No evidence whatsoever was presented against this defendant so there will be no discussion in relation thereto.
The defendants relied on one affidavit from the Commissioner of Lands who denied any knowledge of the claimed agreement. He did inform that on carrying out a search of the records within the Ministry of Natural Resources he found no 18 acre portion of land to which the claimant was the registered owner. Save and except for 30 acres in the San Felipe Village all other lands registered in the claimant's name were leased from the Government of Belize.
It appears that, at its best, the agreement may amount to an open contract. By law certain rights and duties are ascribed to the parties to such a contract. First and most importantly, the vendor is under a duty to show title. He is obligated to convey the interest he has agreed to sell free and clear from encumbrances. Moreover, a man can transfer no greater estate than that which he owns — nemo dat quad non habet. So, if his title falls short of what is required, then the purchaser is not bound to complete. The claimant in the instant case is called upon to prove that the fee simple he has agreed and is obligated to pass has devolved upon him. And certainly possession is insufficient proof of this. As Lord Erskin said in Hiern v. Mill (1806) 13 Ves 114 at 122: “No person in his senses would take an offer of a purchase from a man, merely because he stood upon the ground.”
Although the claimant asserts that he transferred the 18 acres to the Government of Belize the evidence he provided indicates that he could not possibly have done so. Either he is using the term ‘transfer’ extremely loosely and most incorrectly, or he is under some misapprehension since he has shown no title (by deed or certificate) to 18 acres of land in San Felipe Village which is now being used for village extension. Title, if it exists, appears by his own admission, to be vested in his deceased mother. He claims she held same on a resulting trust from him. The presumption of such a trust is not imposed by law it is equitable only and is rebuttable. Neither through his pleadings nor his affidavits has the claimant disclosed that he ever sought to secure legal title. However, under cross-examination, for the first time, he expressed that he had made an application. The exact nature of this application remains a mystery. Any interest at all he may have in 18 acres falls short of the requirements for the transfer of a fee simple under Section 3 of the Law of Property Act Cap. 190 (hereinafter – the LPA).
In my view, since the claimant cannot make good title and has made no real effort since 2010 to achieve same, whatever he purported to have done with or through the San Felipe Village Council was clearly not a transfer of land. This breach of the stipulation as to title does not avoid the agreement it simply makes it unenforceable Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd. 1932 AC 101. The claimant will therefore not be entitled to any of the remedies he has requested. But for fear of having put the cart before the horse let us consider whether there was an agreement in the first place.
The LPA at Section 55(1) requires that all contracts for the sale of land must be in writing or endorsed by some written memorandum or note signed by the party to be charged or some other person lawfully authorized by him. Failing that, an oral contract may be both valid and enforceable if there is a sufficient act of part performance.
The memorandum may take any form, but in order to be effective it must contain a description of the parties and the property, the purchase price and the terms of the contract. – see RE LINDREA (1913) 109 LT 623, STABROCK TRADING ESTATE LTD. v. EGGLETON [1983] 1 A.C. 444And commonwealth caribbean contract law PG. 30. Finally, the memorandum MUST also be signed by the party to be charged or a person lawfully authorized by him. (emphasis mine)
The claimant exhibits a letter dated June 23rd 2010 which is signed by the Honourable Marco Pech as Minister of State in the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment and Area Representative for Orange Walk South. I reproduce it here, precisely and in full, so that its style and content could be properly appreciated. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial