Nirmal Mahadeo (Appellant) v Candice Mahadeo (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2023/0008

Parties

Appellant(s)

Nirmal Mahadeo

Respondent(s)

Candice Mahadeo

Issue

(1) Was the agreement for the sale of an interest in land binding and enforceable? (2) Following that determination, what is the appropriate relief?

Facts

The Appellant, Nirmal Mahadeo, and the Respondent, Candice Mahadeo, are siblings and joint owners of a parcel of land located in Barataria (the “Property”) that they inherited from their deceased father. The Appellant has rented the front building of the Property to the operators of a bar and he has collected rent for his sole use and benefit. The Appellant has used the back building of the Property as his residence. After their father’s death, the Appellant remained in exclusive occupation of the Property and refused access to the Respondent. The Respondent offered to sell her one-third interest in the Property to the Appellant for $500,000. However, she received no response. The Respondent therefore brought a claim in the High Court for (i) an order that the Property either be partitioned in three equal shares, or sold with the proceeds distributed among the joint owners, (ii) a one-third share of all rents received from the Property, and (iii) a mandatory injunction requiring the Appellant to allow the Respondent access to the Property. The Appellant argued that by reason of his expenditure on the Property (to which the Respondent had consented) he had an additional interest beyond his one-third share. He therefore counterclaimed for (i) specific performance of the sale of the Respondent’s one-third interest to him for $500,000, and (ii) a declaration that, in addition to his legal one-third interest, he has an equitable interest in the Property. The High Court ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondent (i) $800,000, representing her one-third interest, (ii) a one-third share of all rents received from the Property, and (iii) costs in the sum of $94,000. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal, save that it reduced the costs order to $14,000.