Justice over technicalities

Mar 21, 2026 Editorial, News

---

(Kaieteur News) – The recent ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) published in this newspaper on Thursday in the matter of Harry Panday v Malcolm Panday and Deosaran David is more than a procedural correction; it is a necessary and timely intervention in the administration of justice in Guyana.

For far too long, litigants have found themselves shut out of the courts, not because their cases lacked merit, but because of technical deficiencies which, in many instances, were entirely curable.

The CCJ’s decision squarely confronts this troubling pattern. By setting out what may now be described as the “Panday approach,” the Court has made it abundantly clear that justice must not be sacrificed on the altar of procedural rigidity. Courts exist to determine disputes on their substantive merits, not to dispose of them prematurely on avoidable technical grounds.

At the heart of the case was a partnership dispute involving a substantial judgment sum. The Applicant’s claim was struck out at the High Court level and that decision was upheld by both the Full Court and the Court of Appeal. The basis? Insufficient particulars. In other words, the claim was deemed defective in its presentation rather than inherently flawed in its substance.

The CCJ has now corrected that course.

In its reasoning, the Court emphasized a structured and balanced approach. First, judges must determine whether a statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action. If it does, then the next question is whether any deficiencies—such as lack of particulars—are capable of being cured. If they are, the court must then weigh considerations of fairness, proportionality, and the efficient use of judicial resources before deciding to strike out the matter.

This may sound like common sense, but in practice it has too often been ignored.

What is particularly significant about this ruling is the Court’s finding that the lower courts erred in law by failing to consider whether the Applicant should have been given an opportunity to amend his claim. This was not merely a difference in opinion; it was a misapplication of judicial discretion. That distinction matters.

For many Guyanese, this decision will resonate deeply. There are countless individuals who have seen their matters dismissed for procedural missteps—errors in drafting, omissions in particulars, or failures that could have been corrected with minimal delay. Instead of being afforded that opportunity, they were met with finality. Their day in court effectively ended before it truly began.

Such outcomes undermine public confidence in the legal system. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. When citizens perceive that cases are being thrown out on technicalities rather than heard on their merits, the system begins to appear inaccessible and, worse, indifferent.

The CCJ’s guidance is therefore both corrective and instructive. Judges must not be too quick to strike out claims where defects are curable. The power to strike out is a drastic one and should be exercised sparingly. It is not a tool for expediency, nor should it be used as a substitute for case management.

This is not to suggest that procedural rules are unimportant. They serve a critical function in ensuring order, clarity, and fairness in litigation. However, rules are meant to facilitate justice, not frustrate it. When applied without flexibility or discernment, they can become instruments of injustice.

The “Panday approach” restores the proper balance. It recognises that while efficiency and judicial economy are important, they must not override the fundamental objective of resolving disputes fairly. Allowing an amendment to a pleading, where appropriate, does not prejudice the opposing party in any meaningful way. On the contrary, it enhances the likelihood that the real issues in dispute will be properly ventilated and determined.

There is also an important message here for the legal fraternity. Attorneys must continue to strive for precision and completeness in their filings. However, where errors occur as they inevitably will, the focus should shift to correction rather than condemnation. The courts, as guardians of justice, must facilitate that process.

Ultimately, this decision represents a step forward for justice in Guyana. It signals a move away from an overly technical and, at times, unforgiving approach to litigation, towards one that prioritises fairness and substance.

The hope now is that this guidance will be faithfully applied at all levels of the judiciary. If it is, fewer cases will be lost on mere technicalities, and more citizens will have the opportunity to have their disputes heard and resolved on their merits.

That is, after all, what justice demands.

---

• CCJ, Deosaran David, Editorial, Harry Panday v Malcolm Panday, justice, technicalities

---