Handyman loses cohabitation lawsuit, fight over home

A 56-year-old handyman has lost his legal battle to keep living at a house in Petit Bourg that belongs to an 83-year-old woman who has been declared mentally unfit to manage her affairs.

In a ruling on June 17, Justice Ricky Rahim dismissed the man’s application for a declaration that a cohabitation relationship existed and for a property adjustment order.

He also ordered the man to surrender and deliver possession of the property to the woman’s children, who were appointed as the Committee of the Patient by another judge under the Mental Health Act in February 2023 after she was diagnosed with dementia. He will be allowed to remove his possessions from the home, and he also has to pay the committee’s legal costs.

According to the evidence, the man claimed he was in a common-law relationship with the woman and that they had lived together at the home since 2009.

He said he had taken care of her and made contributions to the upkeep of the property.

The woman’s children disagreed. The woman, who now lives in Canada, was declared mentally incapacitated under the Mental Health Act.

In his application, the man claimed he was not told of the court’s decision to appoint the committee. Later, he filed his claim as he insisted he and the woman had a romantic relationship and wanted the court to officially recognise him as her cohabitant. He also asked the court to stop the committee from removing him from the house.

The other court had allowed both sides to share access to the property while the matter was being sorted out. Things did not go smoothly. According to the evidence, the committee accused the man of cutting off electricity and hot water, and trying to keep them out of the house. He was also ordered to stop putting locks on the doors and to hand over the keys.

Rahim said there was not enough evidence to prove that the two were in a cohabitational relationship. He said the relationship seemed more like friendship and support, rather than a true romantic partnership.

The judge noted that while he did help around the house, especially as the woman’s health worsened, that alone wasn’t enough. He said there was no clear evidence that they shared finances, lived as partners full-time, or had a relationship like husband and wife, especially when every time she travelled, he had to leave the home.

“This is not a reasonable action on her part in relation to someone who is a live-in partner akin to her husband. The court is of the view that this modus operandi leads to an inference of not living as husband and wife at that time.

“He has given no real evidence of prolonged intimacy, no evidence of sexual activities, no evidence of shared resources such as income from either of them, the degree of financial dependence on each other save and except his bare statement that any money earned was spent on upkeep of the house.”

“The court, therefore, has found that in all of the circumstances, when all of the evidence presented to it is weighed, it is more likely than not that (he) was a companion who facilitated (her) and whose housing needs were met at the same time.

“As her dementia progressed, though, that relationship took on a different character.

Rahim added, “This court finds that the relationship was not a cohabitational relationship despite the fact that (he) may have referred to her as his wife. This view may have been his, but his view is insufficient; it is the fact and circumstances as a whole that define whether the relationship was that of a cohabitational one, and the court finds that it is not.”

The court also ordered that all other related court matters be put on hold, since the man’s claim to the property has been rejected. The judge said the ongoing conflict between the parties had created a tense and sometimes dangerous environment, and the new orders were meant to keep things calm and under control.

“The history of this matter has shown a dire sense of animosity between the parties at times, resulting in near violence. It is in the interest of all that the court makes suitable orders to guide what takes place next so that the committee does not have to resort to self-help.”

The man was represented by Farid Scoon, while the committee was represented by Farai Hove Masaisai, Bernelle-Joy La Foucade and Chelsea Edwards.