Nolan Lalchan (Respondent) v Leroy Knights (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0017

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

LEROY KNIGHTS

Respondent(s)

NOLAN LALCHAN

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the central issue as one of trespass in 2015 and in finding that the Appellant had no better right to the land and that his conduct amounted to trespass.

Facts

Mr Lalchan (the Respondent) brought a claim against Mr Knights (the Appellant) for trespass, seeking damages and an injunction to prevent the Respondent from interfering with his use of the disputed lot. The Appellant contends that his father occupied and cultivated the disputed lot since 1980 until his death in 2002. The Respondent’s brother is said to have assisted his father since 1992, and to have continued cultivating the land until 2009. The Respondent claims that he then continued cultivating the land until the Appellant came on in 2015. The Appellant subsequently erected a fence extending through the disputed lot and into other lands used by neighbours. According to the Respondent, the Appellant later cut down the crops and sprayed them with chemicals. The Appellant filed a defence and counterclaim alleging trespass by the Respondent, seeking damages and an injunction to restrain the Respondent from entering or remaining on the disputed lot. In his defence, the Appellant claims that, because of their circumstances, the Respondent’s father and brother could not and did not cultivate the land. In his counterclaim, the Appellant claims that he and his predecessors, the Peschiers, were in continuous occupation of the land since 1939, which he claimed form part of a larger parcel of land. He claims that, when the elder members of the Peschiers family passed away, their nice (Mary Peschier) occupied and cultivated the larger parcel of land from 1939 until her death in 1999. The Appellant claims that, after Ms Peschier’s death, he continued to be in possession of the larger parcel of land and that he received letters of administration for her estate. He claims that both he and she paid the taxes for the larger parcel of land.