IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT INFERIOR APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2004 BETWEEN: (ANTHONY WHITE ( ( ( AND ( ( (EDITH VALENTINE APPELLANT RESPONDENT BEFORE: Hon. Justice Madam Minnet Hafiz By Written Submissions: Mr. Hubert Elrington SC representing Appellant Mr. Philip J. Palacio representing Respondent D E C I S I O N Introduction 1. This is an inferior appeal of the decision of a Magistrate of a Civil Claim in the Belize District Court. By Suit No. 657 of 2003 Ms. Edith Valentine brought an action against Anthony White in the Magistrate s Court claiming the sum of $3,600.00 as cost of goods taken or destroyed by him. In cross suit No. 753 of 2003 Anthony White claimed the sum of $2,000.00 for arrears of rent from Edith Valentine. 1
Ms. Valentine s Claim 2. At the hearing before the Learned Magistrate, Ms. Valentine testified that she rented an apartment from Mr. White at No. 81 Vernon Street in Belize City at $250.00 per month. In October 2002 she went to United States of America and but was unable to pay the rent for the months of October and November as Mr. White was not at home. Ms. Valentine s evidence is that on leaving for the United States of America she left all her belongings including $500.00 for the rent in a secured place in her apartment. She said that on her return to Belize when she went to her apartment, someone else was occupying same. 3. Ms. Valentine thereafter approached Mr. White who admitted that he broke into the apartment, removed Ms. Valentine s belongings and rented the apartment to someone else. Ms. Valentine further stated that she removed her belongings which were stored in a room in the lower flat of the building. However, several items were damaged and others missing including the $500.00 for the rent. In total she claimed $3,600.00. In her evidence she list the cost of each of the items missing which together with the $500.00 for the rent amounted to $3,600.00. 4. Gloria Valentine the mother of Edith Valentine also testified and confirmed her daughter s testimony. In addition she said that in her daughter s absence Mr. White enquired about her daughter and requested the key for the apartment. She further stated that Mr. White threatened the he would break into the apartment because her daughter did not pay the rent. Ms. Gloria Valentine further testified that on 15 th November 2002 she went to her daughter s apartment and saw Mr. White and two other men in her daughter s apartment packing her daughter s belonging and taking them downstairs. 2
Mr. White s Claim 5. Mr. White in his suit claimed the sum of $2,000.00 for arrears of rent from Ms. Valentine. Ms. Valentine disputed she owed $2,000.00 but admitted that she owed two months rent for October and November, being a total of $500.00. Order by the Magistrate 6. On 17 th March, 2004, the Magistrate after hearing both parties made the following decision and order: Decision: Judgment given in favour of Plaintiff Edith Valentine in reduce sum of $3,100.00. Defendant/Plaintiff Anthony White has not proven claim against Ms. Valentine. Order: Defendant White to pay $3,100.00 by 15 th May, 2004 in default distress. Cost $4.00. Reasons for Decision 7. The Magistrate later gave the reasons for her decision. At page two of her decision she said: The only matter which Anthony White disputes in his testimony was that he stole Edith Valentine s belongings and $500.00 cash. His brother Fred White who testified on his behalf was only present when Edith Valentine went to retrieve her belongings. From the evidence it is clear that Anthony White as landlord had absolutely no right to break into the apartment of his tenant Edith Valentine and 3
remove her things. The law provides a remedy, he should have taken action against her to recover the arrears of rent and possession of the premises. What he did was to take the law into his own hands. Edith Valentine testified that certain items were missing when her stuff was returned. Anthony White said he did not steal them but he didn t say that they were not taken from the apartment. I therefore find that Anthony White must pay the sum of $3,600.00 less the rent she owes to him. The amount therefore that Anthony White is ordered to pay is $3,600.00 less the $500.00 as arrears of rent, a total of $3,100.00 plus cost of $4.00. Now Anthony White claims the sum of $2,000.00 for arrears of rent but he has given no evidence as to how he arrived at that sum. Ms. Valentine, on the other hand, admitted that she had two months rent for Mr. White a total of $500.00 for October and November and I believe her. 8. Grounds of Appeal The Appellant, Anthony White appealed on two grounds: 1) That the decision of the magistrate was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence. 2) Evidence was wrongly rejected or inadmissible evidence was wrongly admitted by the inferior Court and in the latter case there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the decision 4
Agreement to dispose matter by written submissions 9. This matter was set down for hearing before this court on 9 th May, 2011. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Hubert Elrington who appeared for the Appellant indicated to the court that he was not ready for the hearing as he had just taken over the matter from a previous Counsel. At this time, Mr. Palacio had already filed his written submissions in the matter. The matter was then adjourned to 11 th May, 2011 for hearing. 10. On 11 th May 2011 both parties agreed in Chambers of this court to dispose of the matter by written submissions. The parties were ordered to file written submissions by 16 th May, 2011. Mr. Palacio was asked to file a reply if necessary by 25 th May, 2011. To date, no written submissions has been filed by Mr. Elrington who indicated to the court that if by 11 th July, 2011 he does not file his submissions then the court could make its decision without his submissions. It would have been best for Mr. Elrington to file his submissions but the court will not delay the matter any further since the matter has been languishing before the court for too many years. Submissions by the Respondent 11. Learned Counsel, Mr. Palacio in his written submissions submits that it is trite law that an appellate court, on an appeal from a case tried before a judge alone, should not lightly differ from a finding of the trial judge on a question of fact, but a distinction in this respect must be drawn between the perception of facts and the evaluation of facts. 12. Learned Counsel relied on Benmax v Austin Motor co. Ltd [1955] 1 ALL E 325 and submits that the court sitting in its appellate jurisdiction should not differ from the decision of the learned magistrate for the following reasons: 5
1. The Appellant admits that he entered the rented premises and removed the Respondent s items from there. 2. In addition to this admission, the Respondent s witness, Gloria Grisel Valentine, testified as to the state of the items when the Respondent went to retrieve them. Mr. White open it for the police. I went into the house and I saw Edith s things some were damage. The building had water and the things were set in water, her bed, stove, mattress in the water standing, her underwear on floor in water, it appeared to be thrown there. She was frustrated and cried when she first came. Most of the things were destroyed she took them out. The things were in bad condition before we put them on the roadside. Then we move them to my house. We throw away what wasn t good and the others that could be used Edith kept. I do not know what all Edith had in the house. (Transcript Page 10, line 9) 13. Mr. Palacio submits that based on the foregoing the learned magistrate arrived at the proper finding of fact in concluding that the Appellant was responsible for the damaged items claimed by the Respondent. 14. Further, Mr. Palacio submits that Ms. Valentine had two causes of action in relation to the act committed by the Appellant, an action in contract and an action in tort. 15. Learned Counsel Mr. Palacio submits that at the time of the incident the parties were in a landlord and tenant relationship. That at contract, there was an implied term that the Respondent would have quiet enjoyment of the rented premises. The Appellant breached this term when he entered the premises during the subsistence of the Respondent s status as his tenant. 16. Learned Counsel relying on Hill and Redman s Law of Landlord and Tenant, Issue 7, London Butterworths 1991, A405 submits that there was 6
a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and since the Respondent held the leasehold of this property at the time of the action of the Appellant, this also constitutes a trespass. 17. Learned Counsel further submits that if a person approaches the court claiming either a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment or trespass, the court would award nominal damages. However, if as a result of the breach of trespass, the person had suffered some special damage, the court also has the jurisdiction to award special damages. That in this case, the Respondent had itemized her loss to the court and this has been undisputed. As such, Learned Counsel Mr. Palacio submits that the appeal should be dismissed. Determination Ground 1: The decision of the Magistrate was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. 18. I am in agreement with the submissions of Learned Counsel Mr. Palacio. The Magistrate had sufficient evidence before her which shows that the Appellant wrongfully entered into the apartment of the Respondent and removed her belongings. Mr. White did not dispute that he removed Ms. Valentine s belongings from the apartment. There was also evidence before the Magistrate given by Ms. Valentine to prove her special damages. She stated what items were missing and the cost of each item. The Magistrate was satisfied with the evidence and accepted that Ms. Valentine lost items which in total valued $3,600.00. 19. As for the case of Mr. White claiming $2,000.00 in arrears of rent he failed to prove how he arrived at that amount. The Magistrate correctly found that he was owed for two months rent as admitted by Ms. Valentine. 7
Evidence was wrongly rejected or inadmissible evidence was wrongly admitted by the inferior Court and in the latter case there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the decision. 20. As a result of the outcome of ground one, this ground is dismissed. 21. Conclusion I would dismiss the appeal and affirm the decision of the Learned Magistrate. 22. Order The appeal is dismissed. Mr. White to pay $1000.00 cost to Ms. Valentine. Dated this 21 st day of July, 2011.... Minnet Hafiz Supreme Court Judge 8