Latest update March 19th, 2026 12:35 AM
CCJ rebukes Guyana courts …orders fresh hearing in Panday bothers case
(Kaieteur News) – The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has delivered a sharp corrective to Guyana’s judiciary, ruling that local courts erred in throwing out a partnership dispute without first allowing the claimant a fair opportunity to fix deficiencies in his case.
In its reasons issued Tuesday, the CCJ made it clear: justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities. “The Court held that cases should, wherever possible, be determined on their substantive merits rather than being dismissed for curable procedural deficiencies,” CCJ said in a press release.
The ruling stems from the matter of Harry Panday v Malcolm Panday and Deosaran David, a family dispute over a substantial judgment sum of US$733,451 plus interest, which Harry Panday claims belongs to a partnership between himself and his brother.
The Caribbean Court of Justice delivered the ruling on Tuesday
On 17 December 2025, the Court had granted special leave to appeal, that is, permission to appeal, allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter to the High Court of Guyana to be heard before a different Judge, CCJ said in a press release. In its reasons, the Court outlined the procedural framework on how courts should approach striking out applications and/or deficient statements of claims/pleadings, that is, those that may lack a reasonable cause of action or sufficient particulars/facts.
The Applicant’s Statement of Claim was first struck out by the High Court. Both the full Court and the Court of Appeal then upheld the striking out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim due to insufficient particulars.
In its reasons, the Court articulated the appropriate approach for striking out a claim using a framework anchored in the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court held that cases should, wherever possible, be determined on their substantive merits rather than being dismissed for curable procedural deficiencies. Under this approach, where a court identifies a potentially deficient statement of claim, it must first determine whether the pleading discloses a reasonable ground or cause of action for bringing a claim , and whether any deficiency in particulars is curable, the CCJ said.
If the claim discloses a cause of action but lacks sufficient particulars, the court must then conduct a balancing exercise considering: the effective use of resources, proportionality, fairness to all parties, and the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly.
Following the Panday Approach, the Court found that the lower courts’ failure to consider whether the Applicant should be given an opportunity to amend his Statement of Claim, before striking it out, amounted to a misapplication of judicial discretion and an error of law. The panel comprised the Honourable Justices Barrow, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, Eboe-Osuji, and Bulkan. Justice Jamadar delivered the judgment of the Court. Mr. Ronald Burch-Smith represented the Appellant, while Mr. Rajendra R. Jaigobin represented for the First Respondent and Mr. Nirvan Singh for the Second Respondent.
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
