Court battle over Zeeks’ house

Esther Yvonne Sailsman, mother of the children of incarcerated former Matthews Lane strongman Donald ‘Zeeks’ Phipps, is taking steps to be the legal owner of the house he owns with his mother in Havendale, St Andrew.

Sailsman has filed a claim in the Supreme Court seeking to be declared owner of the property by means of adverse possession. She claims she has been living there undisturbed for more than 12 years.

This was highlighted in an appeal she brought against Zeeks’ mother, Leonie Cummings, who was successful in her plaint in the parish court in September 2020 in obtaining recovery of possession of the property from Sailsman, who was served a notice in December 2019 to quit the premises.

Sailsman was not present in court in September 2020 and a default judgment was entered against her. She applied to the parish court to have the default judgment set aside and asserted that the notice of the claim did not come to her attention until October 30, 2020.

She filed grounds of appeal in the parish court, contending that since the annual value of the property exceeded $500,000, the parish judge did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter. She contended she had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim and was the legal owner of the property as she had lived there undisturbed for more than 12 years.

The parish judge handed down her decision in January 2021 and refused to set aside the default judgment.

Sailsman appealed the ruling of the parish judge and last month the Court of Appeal set aside the default judgment.

In her affidavit in the Supreme Court, Sailsman outlined that she had knowledge of the property since 1985 when Phipps, her then spouse and co-owner of the property with Cummings, exercised sole, undisturbed and continuous possession of the property.

She asserted that in 1995, she and Phipps along with their children moved into the property. She said Phipps was imprisoned in or around 2005.

Phipps was convicted in 2006 for a 2005 double murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. He was ordered to serve 30 years before he can be eligible for parole. He lost his appeals to the Court of Appeal and the United Kingdom Privy Council.

Sailsman said that she remained on the property until about 2006, when Cummings asked her to leave and she did so for about three to four months. However, having no other residence, she returned to the property later in 2006 and “remained in sole, undisturbed possession of the property for over 12 years”.

Attorneys-at-law Akuna Noble and Kelli-Ann Younger, who are representing Sailsman, argued, on appeal, that the court should overturn the parish judge’s decision because their client had demonstrated a defence which has a real prospect of success on the basis of the Limitations of Actions Act.

In opposing the appeal, attorney-at-law Trevor Cuff argued that the judge was correct to find that an assertion of adverse possession was insufficient to establish a good defence.

The Court of Appeal – comprising Justice Frank Williams, Justice Jennifer Straw and Justice Nicole Simmons – said that having reviewed the evidence before the parish court and the affidavit which Sailsman filed in the Supreme Court, it was “unable to agree that the appellant failed to put forward a defence with some merit”.

“We are not making a determination at this time as to any factual or legal issue, including the issue as to whether Ms Cummings’ actions would have bound her co-joint tenant [Phipps]. However, the circumstances detailed relating to the year 2006, which were not challenged by Ms Cummings, raise an arguable issue in law as to whether Ms Cummings had revoked the appellant’s right to use the property as a licensee, not only on her behalf, but also on behalf of her fellow joint tenant; and that the appellant’s subsequent re-entry was adverse to the rights of the registered proprietors. This subsequent occupation continued for a period in excess of 12 years,” the court ruled.

In allowing the appeal and setting aside the default judgment, the court said the parish judge would have been wrong to refuse the application on the basis that she did, especially as she was not then required to conduct a mini-trial.

“Consequently, the appellant would have raised a real and substantial issue as to title and the declared annual value of the property being $540,000, the parish court’s jurisdiction would have been exceeded,” the court ruled.

editorial@gleanerjm.com