IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT Case No. 1ED02061





In the matter of Eviction from the Providence Convent House



Between



Archbishop Vincent Nichols, 1st CLAIMANT

Bishop John Arnold 2nd CLAIMANT

Bishop Alan Hopes 3rd CLAIMANT

Mr. Timothy John Gilbert 4th CLAIMANT

(The Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustees)



&



Reverend Father Emefiena Ezeani DEFENDANT









Statement of Fr. Emefiena Ezeani 5 March, 2012



A Lengthy Statement – 9 pages





1. I, the Defendant in this matter, am a Catholic Priest and I was ordained priest on August 15, 1987. I am a British citizen by naturalisation and live at 8 Oakthorpe Road, Palmers Green, N13 5UH. I first arrived in the UK in 1994 not with a Student visa but with a working visa as a Religious Minister as shown in my passport, a copy of which is attached here as Appendix 1. I was the Chaplain to the House of Prayer at the Convent where I live.



2. I am the Defendant, (henceforth the Defendant), in an action brought in this Court by Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Bishop John Arnold and Bishop Alan Hopes (“the Claimants” and Trustees of the Archdiocese of Westminster): Archbishop’s House, Ambrosden Avenue, London SW1P 1QJ.



3. The Defendant makes this statement in response to the Particulars of Claim dated 3 Nov. 2012 (sic), and the facts and matters contained in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I make this statement based on matters from my own general knowledge, knowledge of the teachings, regulations and practices of the Catholic Church and from documents to which I will refer.





THE CLAIMANTS’ CLAIMS & THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES



4. In the Claim Form, Grounds for Possession, the Claimants state: Termination of Licence, and also under the heading About the Tenancy stated: “The Claimant does not have a copy of the licence and believes the terms were oral.” The Defendant, being a priest, his occupancy of a religious house is something more than licence. In the Church, accommodation and sustenance are provided to priests for their ministry in the Church and/or society. If the Claimants are evicting the Defendant from the Convent, they have to offer him alternative accommodation as required by the Church’s practice.



5. In section 4 (c) of the Claimants’ Particulars of Claim, they note as follows: “Notice was given to the Defendant on 28 January 2010 that the current occupancy of the room under licence would terminate on 31 March 2010.” The Claimants’ statement in section 3 (a) of their Particulars of Claim also state as follows: “The Claimant does not have a copy of the licence and believes the terms were oral.” The onus lies on the Claimants to provide evidence that priests need licence in order to live in a presbytery or any other religious house. “…that the dwelling-house is required for occupation by a minister of religion as such a residence” (Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) is being violated by the Claimants who allow others to dwell in the Convent but are evicting the Defendant who is a religious minister.



Read more.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IgboWorldForum/message/128370