The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

COALITION of Independents leader Lincoln Bain has been ordered by a Supreme Court judge to spell out the basis on which he says he was entitled to enter or occupy two disputed West Bay Street properties and identify documents he says supported another man’s claim of ownership.

Justice Camille Darville-Gomez gave Mr Bain until September 22 to file an amended defence or further information verified by a statement of truth in a lawsuit brought by Power Windsun Limited against him and Warren Aranha.

The judge also ordered Mr Bain to pay the company $2,500 in costs before trial.

Mr Bain, who represented himself, is the second defendant in the case. Mr Aranha is the first defendant. The ruling, dated September 1, does not determine ownership of the properties or whether either man trespassed. It concerns whether Mr Bain has adequately set out the facts underlying parts of his defence.

Power Windsun commenced the action on December 31, 2025, seeking possession of two properties on the northern side of West Bay Street, east of Delaporte Point, along with declarations that the defendants have no right, title or interest in them.

The company is also seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from entering or occupying the properties or interfering with its possession and use of them, as well as damages for trespass and mesne profits.

According to Power Windsun’s statement of claim, Mr Aranha allegedly entered the property in or around December 2022 and took possession.

The company alleges that he changed the locks and barricaded the doors of each townhouse, preventing its officers, employees, workers, servants and agents from gaining access.

It further alleges that Mr Aranha later purported to assert lawful ownership of both properties and unlawfully authorised or permitted Mr Bain to occupy Townhouse 2.

Those allegations have not been determined by the court.

Mr Aranha has not filed a defence, according to the ruling.

Mr Bain filed his defence on February 13. He challenged Power Windsun’s claim for mesne profits, alleging that no permits had been issued as the company claimed and that the properties were “nowhere near completion”.

He also said he always had access to the properties and there were no barricades preventing him from entering.

Mr Bain denied the allegation concerning Mr Aranha’s asserted ownership, saying Mr Aranha had always produced “bona fide documents” asserting a valid claim of ownership to the properties.

Power Windsun subsequently asked him to provide more details.

It wanted Mr Bain to identify the permits he alleged had not been obtained, explain what work remained outstanding on the properties, disclose the basis on which he had access to them and identify the ownership documents he said Mr Aranha had shown him.

The company also asked whether Mr Bain’s access arose from a lease, tenancy agreement, licence or some other arrangement and requested the parties, terms and duration of any such agreement.

The request was received on March 9, but the judgment said Mr Bain had not provided a substantive response by April 14. Power Windsun subsequently applied to the court for an order compelling him to provide the information.

Mr Bain opposed the application, arguing that the requests were premature and improperly sought to circumvent the normal disclosure process.

During oral submissions, however, he gave further details about the assertions in his defence.

On his allegation concerning permits, Mr Bain told the court that he had not seen any permit sign or permit number displayed on the property.

He said it was Power Windsun’s responsibility to prove its assertion and indicated that he intended to produce photographs and videos at the case management conference stage.

On his access to the property, Mr Bain said the relevant allegation concerned Mr Aranha.

He also told the court that Mr Aranha had shown him the documents he relied on as the basis for his access.

Regarding the documents allegedly supporting Mr Aranha’s ownership claim, Mr Bain said he was shown them at the Cable Beach Police Station.

Justice Darville-Gomez agreed with Mr Bain that Power Windsun could not use the application to force premature production of photographs, reports, correspondence and other evidence that could properly be dealt with through disclosure and witness statements.

But she drew a distinction between demanding evidence and requiring a defendant to explain the factual basis for allegations already made in his defence.

The judge found that Mr Bain’s assertions concerning the alleged absence of permits, the condition of the properties, his access and the documents said to support Mr Aranha’s ownership claim were central to the case but had been pleaded too generally.

She said the allegation that Mr Aranha supplied “bona fide documents” asserting title necessarily involved documents that appeared material to Mr Bain’s defence, yet those documents had neither been identified nor annexed.

Similarly, the judge found that Mr Bain had asserted that he had access to the properties without saying whether he relied on a lease, licence, permission or another arrangement or setting out any material terms.

Justice Darville-Gomez said Power Windsun was entitled to know the material facts on which Mr Bain relied and the identity of documents he considered necessary to his case. That information, she said, would help define the issues and allow the company to determine whether it needed to file a reply.

Under the order, Mr Bain must identify the permits he says were not issued and explain the factual basis for that assertion.

He must also explain why he says the properties were nowhere near completion, including what work allegedly remained outstanding at the relevant time.

The order further requires him to give the basis on which he says he had access or was entitled to enter or occupy either property, including when he first obtained access and whether he relies on a lease, licence, permission or other arrangement.

If such an arrangement is alleged, he must provide its material terms, parties and duration.

Mr Bain must also identify each document allegedly produced by Mr Aranha and relied on as supporting a valid claim of ownership, including its date, nature, parties or signatories where known and the title or interest it was said to support.

Power Windsun will then have 21 days after receiving Mr Bain’s amended defence or further information to file a reply, with an October 6 deadline imposed by the court.

The substantive dispute remains unresolved.