KINGSTOWN, SVG (BreadFruit News) – The battle over a property at Prospect belonging to Mr Ken Boyea which was promised to his son Luke Boyea reached an important stage in the court last week.
While the substantive issue has not been decided upon, the High Court was asked to determine whether certain witness statements and summaries should be struck out before the trial.
The case revolves around a claim by Mr Ken Boyea that his son Mr Luke Boyea who manages Hot 97.1 Fm is trespassing on a property located in Prospect. The elder Boyea who is Luke’s father filed a claim in the court seeking an order to have his son evicted and costs for damages among other relief.
On the other hand, Luke filed a counterclaim in the Court stating that his father had given permission for him to occupy the Prospect property and promised to transfer ownership. He said relying on this promise, he spent large sums of money completing renovations.
Luke has asked the Court to compel his father to turn over his rights in the property to him as was agreed.
However, the senior Boyea through his lawyer Kay Bacchus-Baptiste said that witness statements and summaries filed by his son are “inadmissible because they contain scandalous, irrelevant, oppressive or otherwise inadmissible material.”
After hearing both arguments, High Court Judge Esco Henry ruled that most of the objections raised by Mr Ken Boyea were without merit.
Luke Boyea intends to argue at full trial relying on evidence from his girlfriend Ms. Shiva Joseph and himself, that his father had put him under immense pressure as he “kept spending money frivolously.”
that part of his defence is that his growing frustration with his father’s mismanagement of the funds of the businesses made him (the son) threaten to leave the businesses, and that this prompted his father’s assurance that the Prospect property was his.
According to the evidence to be presented, Luke was forced to quit his position at the first Aunt Jobes in Stoney Grounds out of frustration with his father and his bad spending habits.
Ms. Joseph in her written witness statement said that Luke “felt like he was doing all the work; which he was, with no reward, a small salary and ‘a father spending huge sums of money on frivolous projects like his garden.”
Luke provided witness statements which evidenced that he oversaw most of the renovation at the property. He said he paid the bills for the contractors, workmen, materials and oversaw their execution of the works.
The case will next go to full trial.