A father left 4.75 acres of mostly swampy land to his 12 children in 1995; one daughter said he had promised her the hill section, and the Privy Council set aside an order to demolish her nearly completed house | World News

In December 1995, a father in Trinidad made a will leaving 4.75 acres of mainly swampy, undeveloped land to his twelve children in equal shares. His daughter, Vashti Ramlal, said he had promised her the section known as the Land on the Hill. On 23 February 2026, the Privy Council, in a judgment by Lord Briggs, upheld the trial judge’s finding that the promise was made, but held that no case of proprietary estoppel was open to her. The Board also set aside the Court of Appeal’s order to demolish a nearly completed house, describing the order as “completely unexplained”.

Privy Council reviews dispute over promised hill land and house demolition

Lord Briggs states that the dispute became contentious because Vashti’s siblings, other than Chandra, were concerned that Vashti’s family was claiming more than her share. He records that nine of the children issued a claim in November 2016 against Vashti, Omar and their son Ravi, seeking damages for trespass, demolition of a new house, and removal of fencing and belongings from the Land on the Hill. The judgment says Ravi had demolished the Chattel House in February 2016 and begun building the New House on the same spot. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that Vashti owned the Land on the Hill.The trial judge, Margaret Mohammed J, dismissed the trespass claim and declared Vashti the owner of the Land on the Hill. According to the Privy Council, she accepted evidence from Vashti, and from Chandra, that the Deceased had told Chandra when making the will to ensure Vashti received that land as her share. The Court of Appeal, by a majority of Bereaux and Wilson JJA, held that this finding could not stand, mainly because in their view the will was inconsistent with it. Lord Briggs notes that the majority nevertheless dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim, and ordered that the New House, by then nearly completed, be demolished. Rajkumar JA dissented on the question of the promise.

Court upholds daughter’s claim to father’s promise over inherited land

The Board concluded that the Court of Appeal should not have overturned the trial judge’s finding of fact that the Deceased promised Vashti the Land on the Hill as her share upon her parents’ death. Lord Briggs explains that there was an inconsistency in legal effect between the will and such a promise, because a devise to several people in equal shares gives each an undivided share in the whole. But he states that there was not such an inconsistency in fact as to require the judge to reject the evidence of Vashti and Chandra. The judgment says the Deceased appears to have assumed that the will and his instruction to Chandra would fulfil the earlier promise, and that the fact the assumption was wrong does not mean he did not make it. A survey provided after the Court of Appeal’s judgment showed the Land on the Hill to be a little less than 1/12 of the whole in area.On proprietary estoppel, Lord Briggs agrees with the Court of Appeal that the promise, the instruction to Chandra and the will did not make an effective gift, describing it as an imperfect gift that equity does not perfect without more. He records that no case of proprietary estoppel was pleaded or pursued at trial and that it was advanced for the first time on appeal. The judgment also states that reliance is an essential element and that it was not pleaded, found or proved that Vashti and Omar acted as they did because of the promise. The Board found it unfair for the claim to be raised for the first time on appeal, since the respondents had no opportunity to raise their own points. It therefore agreed that the defendants had not established a case for equitable relief. The Board also declined to grant a declaration of the Deceased’s promise, saying that the Board had already made clear that the judge’s finding was upheld.

Board urges mediation after overturning house demolition order

Lord Briggs records that in written submissions to the Court of Appeal on 28 September 2023 the claimants stated that, in the spirit of compromise, none of them wished the house to be pulled down. The judgment says a survey by L&S Surveying Services Ltd then reported that the area occupied by Vashti’s family, including the whole footprint of the New House, was less than 1/12 of the land in area. The Court of Appeal’s order of 8 December 2023 nonetheless required the structure to be pulled down, without reasons and without reference to those submissions or the survey. Before the Board, the judgment notes, the claimants’ counsel said his instructions were that they did want the house pulled down, and the Board was told that the house had cost in excess of T&T$400,000 to build.The Board described the order as “completely unexplained” and set it aside. Lord Briggs states that the land will sooner or later have to be partitioned or sold, that any partition would only be fair if regard were had to shares of equal value rather than equal area, and that the house had been built with the consent of Chandra as legal owner. The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of removing the Court of Appeal’s declaration that the house was illegally constructed and its demolition injunction. The injunction prohibiting further construction continues until further order, and other matters concerning the parties’ interests were remitted to a High Court judge in Trinidad and Tobago. The judgment records that the hearing took place on 9 December 2025 before Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose, and that the Board endorsed Rajkumar JA’s advice that the dispute “cries out for mediation”.