A judge shot down an appeal against an eviction after finding that the tenants failed to pay rent and likely “made up” receipts to buy time.

According to a judgment in January, an eviction order was made against Sto’Nea Eve and Colston McKenzie on November 3, 2023, to remove them from an apartment in Sandys over “substantial” rental arrears.

While the pair were told to surrender possession of the apartment by December that year, they launched an appeal, arguing that they had paid their rent in full to the landlord’s “cousin”.

The judgment by Puisne Judge Andrew Martin found that they had made only two payments over two years and owed their landlord more than $87,000.

“This is most unjust,” Mr Justice Martin added.

The matter first came before Magistrates’ Court in 2023 when the landlord, Tanaya Christopher, complained that the tenants had persistently failed to pay their $3,400 rent for an apartment on Bat and Ball Lane.

While the Chief Justice refused to stay the eviction in December 2023, the bailiff did not proceed with the eviction pending the results of their appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court heard that on July 4, 2024, the Chief Justice ordered the tenants to pay the rent on the first day of the month, including that month’s rent forthwith, with the money to be held in escrow until the appeal.

Despite the order, the tenants made only two payments, one of which included deductions for “repair costs”.

While the rental agreement said that the tenants could receive deductions for emergency repairs with the consent of the landlord, Mr Justice Martin said the deductions did not fit either criteria.

“It is clear on the face of the receipts that these did not relate to emergency repairs to the premises, and it was not suggested that the landlord had given her consent,” the judge wrote. “She denied she had given her consent.”

The tenants maintained that they had paid rent between December 2022 and October 2023, stating that they had given money to the landlord’s cousin, whom they referred to as “Mr Butterfield”, and who they said told them that he had been authorised to receive the payments while she was living overseas.

“The landlord denied that she authorised anyone to collect the rent on her behalf and denied that she received any of the payments that were allegedly paid to her ‘cousin’,” the judge wrote.

“The landlord said she did not even know a Mr Butterfield.

“The court was informed by her counsel that the landlord had produced her bank statements to the magistrate to verify that no payments were made into her bank account during the relevant period.”

While the tenants provided the magistrate with a list of purported rental payments for the period, the judge noted a number of discrepancies between the payments and the version of events described.

“The first discrepancy is that the tenants later claimed they had no details of the landlord’s bank,” he wrote.

“The second discrepancy is that no explanation was given as to why the tenants stopped making payments to the landlord’s bank and started allegedly giving the rent money in US dollars in cash to someone the tenants did not know but who simply told them that he had authority to accept the money on the landlord’s behalf.

“They are not signed at all, neither by the landlord nor by someone purporting to do so on her behalf, and there is no reference to Mr Butterfield. The documents appear to be printed from a pro forma template and they are not countersigned by the tenants.

“The amounts recorded vary. There are two receipts for the full amount of the rent and the other receipts vary between $3,200 and $1,075. They do not reflect payment of the full amount of the rent due in any event, but they are put forward as evidence that the rent had been paid in full for these months.”

Mr Justice Martin said the most likely explanation was that the tenants did not pay any rent during the period and had “made up” the receipts in an effort to buy time.

“In my view, the whole story put forward by the tenants is lacking in reality and substance,” he said, stating that he had no hesitation in dismissing their appeal.

Mr Justice Martin said that apart from the two payments made in 2024, the tenants had not paid any rent for two years.

He ordered the tenants pay a total of $87,346 for rent with an annual interest rate of 3.5 per cent on the judgment amount.

The judge added: “For the avoidance of any doubt or further delay, the court made an order for possession of the premises with effect from December 31, 2024, and lifted the stay of execution of the warrant to evict from that date.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers