Martin Phillip Revenales (Appellant) v Eric Charles and 5 others (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0107

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Martin Phillip Revenales

Respondent(s)

(1) Eric Charles, (2) Stress Free Real Estate & Construction Company Limited

(1) Alistar Moonassar, (2) Maria Moonassar

(1) Udesh Moonassar, (2) Vidya Ramjit-Moonassar

Theresa Yvonne Deonarine

Issue

Is the claimant entitled to an order vesting in him title to the land owned by the second defendant, based on the claimant’s occupation of the land for over 16 years?

Facts

This case concerns ownership of a parcel of land (“the subject land”). The second defendant, Stress Free Real Estate & Construction Company Limited (“Stress Free”) is the registered owner of the subject land. The third to sixth defendants have purchased smaller parcels of this land from Stress Free. The claimant, Mr Revenales, claims to have occupied the subject land in continuous undisturbed possession since 1972. In 2006, the first defendant, Mr Charles entered the land possessed by the claimant with bulldozers and demolished his house. Mr Revenales raised a claim in trespass in the High Court against Mr Charles (“the 2006 claim”). The 2006 claim concerned a five-acre area of land which was slightly smaller than the subject land. Stress Free was not a party to the 2006 claim. The trial judge in the 2006 claim found that Mr Revenales had a greater right to the land than Mr Charles, because Mr Charles had not provided any evidence of his agency to Stress Free or of Stress Free’s ownership of the land. Mr Revenales was awarded damages of $107,750.00 for trespass on this basis. No declarations as to his title to the land were sought. In 2016, Mr Revenales raised the present claim against the defendants (“the 2016 claim”). He sought a declaration that Stress Free’s ownership of the subject land has been extinguished by virtue of his own adverse possession and an order vesting in him legal title to the subject land. He also sought damages in trespass against the third to sixth defendants and an injunction preventing them from carrying out further work on their parcels of the subject land. In the 2016 claim, Mr Revenales relied upon the findings of the trial judge in the 2006 claim to argue that he had possessory title to the subject land. This was rejected, because Stress Free had not been a party to the 2006 claim and so the decision could not be binding upon it. The judge then held that Mr Revenales had not sufficiently established the boundaries to the subject land in his pleadings and as such refused to grant the relief he sought. Mr Revenales appealed to the Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal. Mr Revenales now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

21 October 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top