Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON JSC
This is an appeal by the Plaintiff in this matter against the judgment of the High Court delivered on 16th June 2016 on the following grounds
a. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.
b. The learned trial judge erred when he held that there was no agreement to relocate plaintiff to Trasaco Valley.
c. The learned trial judge erred when he held that the Defendants structures did not constitute a nuisance to the plaintiff.
d. The learned trial judge erred when he rested his decision on extraneous matters and failed to consider the entirety of the record which error has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.
e. The learned trial judge misunderstood and/or misapplied the facts and the law on the subject matter of this case which error has occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice f. The learned trial judge erred in the quantum of damages awarded to the plaintiff g. Additional grounds to be filed upon receipt of the Record of Appeal.
No additional grounds were filed.
The designations of the parties at the High Court will be maintained in this appeal.
The background to this case is that the plaintiff who acquired his land in 1984 developed it into a residence and moved into it with his family in 2007. Sometime in 2008, the 1st defendant began the construction of a classroom block behind the plaintiff’s wall and blocked access to a portion of his property.
His protestations about this yielded no results.
In 2010, the plaintiffs purchased an adjoining residential property, demolished it and commenced the construction of a storey building for use as lecture halls.
The plaintiff’s complaints are that his right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of his property have been violated and the activities of the defendants also amount to nuisance.
The Plaintiff alleges that the defendants promised to relocate and compensate him as a result and for these complaints.
It was their alleged failure to fulfil this promise which led to him instituting the present action.
In response, the defendants took the position that plaintiff was “not entitled to his claim in its present form or at all. ”As stated earlier, it is the plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the judgment of the high court which has led to the present appeal.
Counsel for the Plaintiff argued grounds a, b, d and e together under two legs described as the facts and the application of the law.
The defendants took the grounds individually as set out in the ground