CCJ puts end to longstanding family disputes over properties in Guyana

Feb 21, 2022 News

---

Kaieteur News – The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) last Friday handed down decisions in two cases related to property disputes in Guyana.
Both rulings were handed down on Friday last. The first matter related to a sibling rivalry over a plot of land that was owned by their parents while the other case involved the dispute over the ownership of a Newtown Kitty property.
The first case was between Sahadeo Prashad who was named as the appellant and his siblings: Basmattie Persaud, Bhagmattie Persaud and Coblall Persaud. According to a summary of the judgment presented by the CCJ, Prashad brought an action for possession and mesne profits against his siblings in their personal capacities. He claimed he has been the owner of the land by virtue of transport since 1985.
The siblings defended and counterclaimed that the appellant obtained the transport by fraud or alternatively, that he held the land in trust for the estate of their father, Harold Prashad (“Harold”). They pleaded that their parents, Harold and Raywantie Prashad, desired to purchase the land but could not secure a mortgage because of their advanced age so they entered into an agreement with the appellant to acquire the land.
The alleged agreement was that Prashad would apply for the mortgage and have the transport passed to him but all the mortgage payments would be funded by the parents. When the mortgage payments were completed, then Prashad would transfer the land to his parents. Prashad replied denying any such agreement and his sibling legal standing to make a claim on behalf of the father’s estate. On the eve of the trial, the siblings applied to join Harold’s estate but the trial judge refused the application (the “interlocutory order”).
They however did not appeal that decision. Following the trial on the merits of fraud and trust; the court found there was sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a trust. Accordingly, the court found that the appellant (Prashad) held the land in trust for Harold’s estate. Interestingly, in its disposition of the appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered that Harold’s estate be joined to the proceedings. Parshad nevertheless went to the CCJ. Following the oral hearing, the CCJ asked the parties to submit responses to questions concerning whether trusts in land could exist and operate in Guyana.
The Court in a judgment authored by Justice Denys Barrow found that the appeal should be allowed because the respondents had no legal standing since they were before the lower courts only in their personal capacities, and there was nothing to show that they had a right to possession of the land. The Court therefore determined that the judge should have struck out the Defence and Counterclaim because the respondents had no right to the land and thus, no legal standing.
Barrow also found that the order for joinder served no purpose and had no effect because it was made after the High Court proceedings ended and after the appeal had been heard. More particularly, in the first place, the CCJ found that Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the interlocutory order. The Judges also observed inter alia, that in Guyana the express trust relating to immovables must be in writing and it is usually under seal, and formally registered in the Deeds Registry. However, the Judges found that it was not necessary in this case to decide whether that was a correct proposition of the law. The court ruled in favour of Sahadeo and his siblings were ordered to pay standard costs to the appellant.
In the second case, the CCJ dismissed the case brought by Shekeela Kanhai, Evie Anne Kanhai and Miguel Gurchuran brought against Basantie Persaud. At the core of this case was a dispute over the sale of the Newtown Kitty, Georgetown property. According to a summary of the CCJ decision, the property was originally owned by Iris the mother of the reputed husband of the respondent in the matter, Basantie Persaud. Iris had entered an agreement to lease the property to her brother Sobers but that lease never took effect. However, Sobers sold the property to Gladstone Alert in 1992 who later sold it to the Kanhais but the issue over the rightful ownership of the property came up in 2007.
The lower courts had reportedly dismissed the claims by the Kanhais and they took the matter to the CCJ. In its decision on Friday, the Court found that Iris had been given possession of the Sublot X Newton Kitty property was maintained by Iris and continued by Fletchman and the Respondent. The Court therefore agreed with the Court of Appeal, that the agreement between Iris and Sobers – being a personal contractual relationship – expired upon Iris’ death in 1990. As such, the title of Sobers in relation to Sublot X expired in that year and Fletchman became entitled to a declaration of title to Sublot X. The Court thus dismissed the appeal and ordered that the Kanhais pay the respondent, (Persaud) costs.

---

---