Carla Anita Cecilia Braynen Turnquest (Respondent) v Water and Sewerage Corporation (Appellant) (Bahamas)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0050

Jurisdiction

Bahamas

Parties

Appellant(s)

Water and Sewerage Corporation

Respondent(s)

Carla Turnquest

Issue

The case raises the following issues: (1) Did the Court of Appeal err in reversing the finding that the Respondent had not proved documentary title in respect of the contested property? May the courts rely on section 3 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to require the Respondent to deduce title beyond her 1963 Conveyance? (2) Did the Court of Appeal wrongly interfere with the finding that the Appellant had proved intention to possess? Does section 38 of the Limitation Act 1995 apply in the present circumstances? (3) If the Respondent has documentary title and the Appellant has possessory title in respect of the property, does the former, even if defective, constitute better title than the latter in a claim in trespass?

Facts

The case concerns contested title to a parcel of a tract of land, approximately 660 acres in size (“the Parcel”). By 1983, the Appellant, Water and Sewage Corporation, entered the Parcel and erected a water holding tank and storage apparatus. In 2009, after the Respondent inherited her father’s estate, she hired a surveyor between 2009 and 2011 to conduct a survey of the Parcel, leading to the discovery of the Appellant’s tank and apparatus. In 2012, the Respondent advised the Appellant that she is the owner of the Parcel and demanded compensation for trespass. The Appellant indicated it would need time to investigate title. In 2017, having appraised the Parcel, the Respondent made an offer to the Appellant for mesne profits for past unauthorised occupancy and for ongoing occupation. In May 2018, pending final settlement of the issue, the Respondent submitted to the Appellant an invoice for which the Appellant issued a cheque. In 2019, the Appellant indicated that its investigation found no documentary evidence proving the Respondent’s lawful ownership of the Parcel and requested return of the cheque. In October 2018, the Respondent brought a claim in the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas claiming to be the sole beneficial and legal owner of the Parcel and alleging the Appellant’s trespass. The Appellant denied that the Respondent was the lawful owner of the Parcel and claimed possessory title. In December 2022, the Supreme Court of the Bahamas found that the Appellant had possessory title, and that the Respondent had not provided adequate proof of title. It thus dismissed the Respondent’s writ of summons and ordered return of the sum of the cheque paid by the Appellant to the Respondent. It The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the only existing documentary root of title to be that of the Respondent, and finding the Appellant to have no right, title or interest in the Parcel. It made order for mesne profits, as well as damages in respect of the infrastructure. The Appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

10 June 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top