Our firm successfully obtained a summary judgement for our clients in this curious case of unlawful possession. This case involved a property dispute between the plaintiffs, Mr Ravinai Prasad and Mrs Neelesh Chandra, and the defendants, Mr Abraham Wharewaka and Mrs Shirlena Julian. The plaintiffs were the registered owners of the property on the record of title and had actual ownership rights over said property. In opposition, the defendants claimed that they had ownership rights over the property either as Māori land or through the plaintiff’s fraudulently purchasing the property.
Background
The defendants had been living in the plaintiff’s rental property in Otahuhu illegally around May 2018, moving their belongings in and changing the locks on the property. Several trespass notices were issued by the plaintiffs to the defendants. Despite this, the defendants did not move out.
The plaintiffs shortly after issued legal proceedings to trespass and remove the defendants from the premises.
Legal Proceedings
The plaintiffs, represented by Tamina Cunningham-Adams of Evolution Lawyers, sought a summary judgment to recover possession of their property. Under the record of title for the property, the plaintiffs were the lawful owners and registered proprietors. The defendants were occupying the property without consent, despite being served trespass notices.
The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants had no legal or equitable right to remain on the premises. They sought an order requiring the defendants to vacate, remove their belongings, and deliver possession within seven days.
The defendants opposed the application, claiming the property belonged to Mr. Wharewaka’s father and was either Māori land or fraudulently acquired by the plaintiffs. They relied on alleged discrepancies in the property’s residential address being different to the one recorded on the plaintiff’s sale and purchase agreement in claiming the property fraudulently acquired. However, their arguments lacked coherent legal or factual support.
Court’s Findings and Decision
Justice M-E Sharp found the plaintiffs provided unequivocal evidence, including affidavits and records of title, confirming their legal ownership. The property was correctly identified in legal documents, and any address confusion was deemed irrelevant. The defendants had no valid defence, legal title, or right to occupy the property.
It was determined the defendants’ claims were unsubstantiated, inherently improbable, and failed to present any material conflict of evidence. Justice M-E Sharp granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for the above reasons, ordering the defendants to vacate the property and remove their belongings within seven days.
Conclusion
This case underscores the importance of clear legal ownership and demonstrates the court’s willingness to use summary judgment to swiftly resolve disputes involving unlawful occupation. We assisted our clients every step of the way, making sure they understood the proceedings and keeping them informed, achieving the best possible results for them.