Latest update May 22nd, 2026 12:38 AM
CCJ settles dispute over validity of Guyanese businessman’s will
Kaieteur News – The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has settled a dispute over the validity of Guyanese businessman, Yusuf Mongroo’s will.
In its decision, the CCJ set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal (COA) here and restored the judgment of the High Court. According to the case which was before the CCJ, Mongroo’s two daughters have been contesting the will in which he appointed his business manager, Sasedai Persaud, as executor, and made her the principal beneficiary.
While his common-law wife, Indranie Mulchand, also benefitted under the will which was made a few days before his death, his daughters, Sherene Mongroo and Zenobia Rosenberg, were not named as beneficiaries.
In the High Court, the trial judge found that the will of the businessman was valid and effective, and approved for probate purposes, the copy of the will was put into evidence during the trial. This ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal, after Mongroos daughter appealed the decision.
Persaud, the executor of the will, then took the matter to the CCJ. In a judgment authored by Justice Rajnauth-Lee of the CCJ, it was noted they considered whether conflicting opinions delivered in the Court of Appeal, on certain issues, resulted in a defective judgment on those issues that should be set aside. The CCJ underscored that in “its Appellate Jurisdiction, it is a superior court of record with such jurisdiction and powers…”
Before embarking on the issues which largely concerned findings of fact made by the trial judge, the CCJ explained that where a trial judge had properly utilised the distinct advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses, had adequately evaluated the witnesses, and weighed the facts and circumstances of the case, an appellate court ought not to lightly reverse findings of credibility arrived at by the trial judge.
On the issue of whether Mr. Mongroo had the required testamentary capacity, the CCJ found that there were no circumstances that should have aroused the suspicion of the trial judge in this case.
In particular, the CCJ noted that the trial judge accepted the evidence of Mr. Vidyanand Persaud, Attorney-at-Law who prepared the will, and of Dr. Rohan Jabour, a medical doctor, who was one of the witnesses to the will.
The CCJ noted that the trial judge also found that the daughters had not established that they enjoyed a close relationship with their father. The CCJ, therefore, held that the evidence accepted by the trial judge provided a sufficient basis on which she could have found that Mr. Mongroo had the requisite testamentary capacity.
The Court was of the view that having regard to the evidence accepted by the trial judge, and in particular, the evidence of Dr. Jabour, the trial judge’s finding that Mr. Mongroo acknowledged his signature on the will in the presence of both witnesses, who signed in his presence, and of each other, could not be faulted. The Court, therefore, held that due execution of the will had been established. The CCJ concluded that the trial judge considered the evidence of the two expert witnesses who examined the will. Therefore, the Court found that the trial judge was correct to find that the signature on the will was that of Mr. Mongroo.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
