Latest update November 2nd, 2024 1:00 AM
Latest News
- Exxon says oil production in Guyana increased by 60% since last year
- Guyana’s oil funds can fund modernization of electoral system-AFC
- Israeli attacks kill dozens in Gaza, Lebanon as ceasefire remains elusive
- Six-year-old child dies after swallowing thumbtack at Crane school
- Acting Chief Magistrate now assigned to preside over Elections Fraud case
Former Appeal Court Judge gets justice after 26 years
By Kiana Wilburg
Domitius Ulpianus, a most distinguished Roman jurist once said, “Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due.” Though said centuries ago, it is befitting of the victory recently won by former Appellate Court Judge, Nandram Kissoon who approached the courts over 25 years ago to settle a land dispute matter.
The facts of the case state that in 1989, Kissoon and Vickram Oditt, in a joint effort, acquired 3000 acres of arable land referred to as Letter T Estate in the Mahaica-Berbice region. At the time of sale, the land was being used primarily to support rice and coconut cultivation.
But a disagreement later ensued between Kissoon and the defendant over a portion of the 3000 acre land that was supposed to be allotted to the first named party.
In hopes of bringing an end to the gridlock, Kissoon commenced legal action by way of Writ of Summons on February 25, 1993, claiming certain orders. The matter was first heard by the late Chief Justice (ag), Ian Chang S.C.
Court documents note that the parties, by agreement, appointed Dwarka Ramkarran, a reputable surveyor, to demarcate boundaries of the 1100 acres within the area agreed upon by the parties. Ramkarran, with his assistant Ganesh Shew, subsequently surveyed the area in the presence of the plaintiff and the main defendant.
Former Appellate Court Judge, Nandram Kissoon
Ramkarran then submitted a sketch plan demarcating the 1100 acres to Kissoon, Oditt and the other named defendant in the case, Vinelli Industries Limited. However, when the matter came up for hearing before Justice Chang, the sketch plan presented by Kissoon differed from that which was presented by Oditt on behalf of the defendants.
The parties therefore could not reach an agreement. Justice Chang, who had issued a Consent Order in favour of the Plaintiff, subsequently transferred the matter to Justice James Bovell-Drakes for him to determine the boundaries of 1100 acres of land being a part of Letter ‘T’ Estates Limited to be allocated to the Plaintiff.
In his ruling, which was handed down this year, Justice Drakes noted that he had the benefit of being presented with evidence from Ramkarran and Shew. This newspaper understands that Ramkarran testified that he was retained by Kissoon and Oditt on behalf of the defendants to demarcate the boundaries of 1100 acres as identified by Oditt. Having conducted his survey, he told the courts that he prepared a sketch plan with defined boundaries comprising of Tract A containing 508 acres, Tract B containing 215 acres, Tract C containing 365 acres, together with a portion of tract E.
Ramkarran was emphatic in his evidence that he had no knowledge of a duplicate sketch plan except the one he presented for the Court. Another sketch plan was shown to him purportedly bearing his name, which he vehemently denied permitting or authorizing anyone else to do.
The court later learnt that Shew, who kept the records on his computer, had been asked to prepare certain proposals containing 1100 acres using Ramkarran’s sketch plan, for his personal use. The sketch plan presented by Oditt to the Court was one of the sketch plans Shew prepared for him. This sketch plan, however, was not authorized by his boss, Ramkarran. Also revealed in court was the fact that Shew was paid the sum of $20,000 to prepare the alternate plan.
In the circumstances, Justice Bovell-Drakes used the evidence submitted by Kissoon and his witnesses, Ramkarran and Shew, as it was deemed credible for the determination of the case.
Justice Bovell-Drakes subsequently ruled that the Consent order that was initially awarded by the late Chief Justice Ian Chang SC (ag) in favour of the Plaintiff cannot be set aside by his Court. In fact, the Judge made it clear that a Consent order can only be set aside on the ground of fraud by an independent proceeding being instituted for that purpose and his court was satisfied that the said order was not obtained by such means.
The Judge also ruled that the demarcated 1100 acres be allocated to the plaintiff with the sketch plan registered at the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
The tirade against the independent media continues unabated
…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- In every democracy worth its salt, the press serves as the watchdog, the thorn in the side... more
Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... more
Weekend Cartoon
