According to a Writ of Summons stamped by the Grand Court on March 16, 2023, Sandra Kayle Clyatt Meekins, a George Town property owner, has filed a claim for damages against Leslie Harvey, Harvey’s Construction, and others for the removal of a 200-year-old slave wall.
Based on the claim, a 7’4″ chain link fence with barbed wire was erected along the property slave wall.
The claim explained further:
It is noted the application for Planning permission was not sought in advance of the erection of the fence and further the application stated that the second defendants wish to have the fence in place to keep their dogs safe during construction and renovation.
There was also a claim that there was trespassing from other neighbours who had vandalise and destroyed their walls.
Concerning this, the claim noted that Miss Meekins did not oppose the fence but requested that the slave wall and wall of vegetation remain untouched.
The claim continued:
Notwithstanding the promise made to the Central Planning Authority by the second defendants, on 17th August 2022, the second defendants permitted the first and third defendants to demolish the slave wall and cut down and removed a significant amount of vegetation on the Plaintiff’s property.
The vegetation which was removed included a palm tree, papaya trees and other mature and fruit trees, a desert rose plant the list is not exhaustive. Further, the first and third defendants damaged another fence on the Plaintiffs property. The Plaintiff was working abroad at the time and had not known immediately that the second defendants had permitted the first and third defendants to destroy her property. However, she was informed by telephone later that day by another neighbour.
The claim said further:
At the time of the damage to and removal of her property, a neighbour of the Plaintiff attempted to prevent the first and third defendants from damaging the wall and removing the property.
The first and third defendants whether by themselves or through their servants or agents claimed that the properly they were removing was theirs and was on their land. The police were called and due to the false claims made by the first and third defendant that the property belonged to them, the police permitted them to continue with the demolition of the property belonging to the Plaintiff.
The property was destroyed and then removed without the Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent. The information caused the Plaintiff significant distress, pain and suffering.
Miss Meekins is now seeking the following from the Court:
Damages for private nuisance and trespassDamages for the replacement of the stolen stones and the replacement of a similar wall with similar or the same stonesDamages for the destroyed fence and uprooted and destroyed vegetation, including mature treesExemplary damages to be assessed by the CourtInterestsCosts
