Three Certainties Definition

The “Three Certainties” requirement, according to Kodilinye , are the certainties of intention, subject and objects, which must be present in order for an express trust to take effect. By using decided Caribbean cases, each of the three certainties shall be explained and analyzed, in order to illustrate their roles in giving effect to trusts. According to Kodilinye, Certainty of intention (words) is a fundamental principle, as an express trust is only created when the settlor/testator exhibits the intention to do so. In the case Re Codrington , the will of Mr. Codrington was admitted to probate, however, an issue arose where he stated, “….my desire to have the plantation continue….”. Words such as “desire” are “precatory” in nature and

“Firstly, there must be certainty as to the property held upon trust and secondly, there must be certainty as to the beneficial interests each beneficiary is to receive.” In the case of Looby v Gittens , the claimant, who was the former wife of the late George Looby, claimed that during the course of their marriage, they acquired “substantial assets” which were either in the sole name of George Looby, in the name of companies or were in the joint names of the claimant and George Looby. The claimant also submitted a matrimonial settlement agreement that she had with George Looby, as well as correspondences between her legal representative and the legal representative of George Looby, who is now the defendant. In this matrimonial settlement, George Looby is the settlor, the defendant is the trustee and the claimant is a beneficiary. The claimant contended that following the death of George Looby, the defendant indicated that they would honor her said agreement with him, however, they soon strayed from that indication and served an eviction notice to the claimant, who was residing in a property at Paradise View, which was held to be part of George Looby’s estate. The claimant therefore sought for a declaration that, “she is entitled to share in George Looby’s estate, that the defendant, who was the trustee of George Looby’s estate, did not give full effect to the terms of the Matrimonial settlement and that the defendant must be restrained from evicting the claimant from the property.” Justice Ward stated in his judgement, “that Certainty of subject matter did exist, in view of the various correspondences between the legal representatives of the claimant and George Looby.” These correspondences were held by the court, as evidence that both parties agreed to finalize the matrimonial settlement and fully outlined the subject matters of