[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> James & Anor v Opanubi [2002] EWCA Civ 1898 (29 November 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1898.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1898

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
CHANCERY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE PATTEN)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Friday, 29 November 2002

Friday, 29 November 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: I have before me an application for permission to appeal. The two would-be appellants, Janet James and Michael Wiseman, were defendants. They seek permission to appeal an order made by Patten J who held that they had not acquired title by adverse possession. That order was itself made on appeal from the late Mr Recorder Doggett. In those circumstances permission will not be given to appeal a second time unless the appeal would raise an important point of principle or there is some other compelling reason for this court to hear it. CPR Part 52.13.
2. The claimant is the interim administrator, Oladipo Opanubi, of the estate of the late Chief Adewunmi Adeboye, who died in 1987. He had the freehold title of 167 Gypsy Road, Norwood. The claimant brought proceedings against four people, including Miss James and Mr Wiseman, each of whom occupied a room in the property. Mr Recorder Doggett dismissed the claimant's claim for possession. He held that Miss James had a protected tenancy of the room she was occupying, and that Mr Wiseman had a right to occupy the room which he was occupying by virtue of a trust. There was then an appeal to Patten J from that finding, and it is odd in a way because they had actually been successful in the sense that there had been an action for possession and the action had failed, and there they were, so I am told by their litigation friend, Mr Poorum, who has acted for them throughout.
3. The case had taken a very odd turn in front of Mr Recorder Doggett, who appeared to have given a judgment in March 2001, a further judgment in November 2001 and then finally made an order in February of 2002 which was then amended in March 2002. As I understand it from him the recorder himself brought in the question of adverse possession which had never been pleaded properly at all by anyone, and suddenly the appellants found themselves dealing with a claim as litigants in person with which they really were not very familiar.
4. The background facts appear to be pretty muddled. The position seems to have been that the chief was the freeholder; Miss James had been in her room under an oral tenancy granted by a Mr Andresier since July 1988; Mr Wiseman had been in his room under an oral tenancy granted by Mr Andresier in 1987. Rent was paid by them to Mr Andresier until 1993. The tenants thought that Mr Andresier was the landlord. In fact Mr Andresier was the Chief's agent and had after the chief's death apparently continued to think of himself as an agent and remitted the rent to a Mrs Adeboye, who was the Chief's wife, or possibly one of them, the Chief having apparently several wives. The house meanwhile, so the tenants claimed, was getting into a sad state of disrepair and so they formed up in front of Mr Andresier in 1993, complained about the state of the house, asked what Mr Andresier was going to do about it and at that point it seems Mr Andresier decided he did not want to be further involved, wrote to Mrs Adeboye and said he was ceasing to act, and he then disappeared from the scene. The tenants meanwhile carried out various works on the house and no further rent demands were made on them.
5. Some seven years after that there came a claim form asking for possession done by the interim administrator who was clearly in the dark as to what the true situation was on the grounds, so far as the two tenants were concerned, what title, if any, they had pursuant to what situation. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the will of the late Chief was the subject of dispute in, I think, Nigeria, applying (and I may be wrong here) Spanish law. It was an extremely difficult situation and there are potentially quite difficult problems about the effect of the payment of rent to Mr Andresier and to the payment by Mr Andresier of the moneys to somebody who may or may not be entitled to it.
6. Mr Poorum has clearly put in a lot of work on this. He is, however, a litigation friend, with no experience of litigation, although he has done the case before the two tribunals below. I, at the moment, am not convinced that he has no case; nor am I sure that the provisions of Part 52.13 are satisfied in this case. A half hour has merely been allotted to it and we cannot give it any longer. I think the appropriate course, as I have indicated to them, is to adjourn the matter for the first open date next term, notice to be given to the defendant. The would-be appellants would be well advised to contact the Citizens Advice Bureau and seek their help so that they can put their paperwork in a more condensed and clear legal form, referring to the latest House of Lords cases on limitation and such like, which at the moment they have not done.
7. I accordingly adjourn this case.
(Application adjourned; no order for costs).