Full Court overturns dismissal in CLICO Investment Bank Case, orders retrial

Apr 11, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Guyana’s Attorney General and Clico Life and General Insurance Company (South America) Ltd. Have successfully appealed a high court decision which struck out their case against Clico Investment Bank Ltd. (CIB), with the full court ordering a new hearing.

In a decision delivered on April 8, 2026, Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag), Navindra A. Singh, and Justice Nigel Niles found that the high court erred in dismissing the claim on the basis of res judicata.

The appeal lies from a lawsuit filed on July 11, 2024, in which the appellants sought various declarations and remedies against the bank, which is under compulsory liquidation.

According to the court document, when the case was initiated in 2024, the bank did not file a defence but instead applied to have the claim struck out. The bank’s application was granted and the claim was struck out in September 2025. It is from that order that the appeal arises.

While the trial judge had found that the reliefs being sought were res judicata based on the 2009 ruling. The full court found such a ruling to be erroneous; on the grounds that the claim against CIB in the previous high court action and the action brought by the appellants are premised differently.

According to the court document, the 2009 claim was based on an assertion that CL Financial had arranged for monies due from Bosai Minerals Guyana Group Inc. and Bosai Minerals Guyana Services Inc., under certain debentures to Clico Investment Bank, to be diverted to Clico Life and the state represented by the attorney general in this present action.

Clico Life had failed to establish that arrangement or assignment of payment in the 2009 court action, resulting in the dismissal of that claim.

“The court did not investigate or make any ruling in HCA 173-CD/2009 with respect to the claim that CL Financial controlled or directed Clico Life and CIB in transactions or otherwise, which assertion is germane to the current claim,” the full court ruled.

In the 2009 case, the claimant had obtained judgment against CL Financial, along with a declaration that the second named claimant and the defendant are subsidiaries of CL Financial. That court also found that the second named claimant was subject to the directions of CL Financial.

The court was asked to investigate the relationship between CL Financial, the second named claimant, and the defendant, with a view to obtaining equitable remedies. These include a declaration that a constructive trust existed between the entities, which would justify the tracing of monies paid to Clico Bahamas Ltd and ultimately restitution.

The claim is premised on the assertion that CL Financial, Clico Life, and CIB were under common control, and that funds were moved among these and other related companies at the direction of CL Financial. The claimants allege that there was improper diversion or transfer of funds within this group of companies and a misuse of those funds, and on that basis sought the court’s examination of the legality of those transfers.

They further asserted that, if such claims are established, the court is entitled to trace the funds and order restitution through the defendant.

The trial judge had expressed dissatisfaction with the particulars of the alleged conspiracy between CL Financial and the defendant, as well as the particulars of breach of trust and fraud pleaded by the claimants, noting that no specific incident, transaction, or communication involving the defendant was identified.

The document further stated that in circumstances where a clandestine scheme between companies, not individuals, is alleged, pleadings are likely to outline the general conduct of the companies and the resulting outcomes. It also states that due to the nature of corporate structures, specific details may not be known to the entity alleging harm. That, however, is precisely the purpose of the discovery tools available under the rules of court, which can be engaged after a defence is filed.

“The fact is, in a case where there is an allegation of an organised corporate scheme intended to defraud a claimant, a court ought to be slow in making a determination with respect to res judicata and abuse of process based solely on the pleadings, moreover, just the pleadings of one party,” the Full Court ruled.

The full court noted that in cases involving allegations of an organised corporate scheme intended to defraud a claimant, a court ought to be slow to determine issues of res judicata and abuse of process based solely on pleadings—particularly the pleadings of one party. “An application to strike out the claim on those grounds should not have been entertained in this case until after discovery was complete and witness statements filed since at that stage the court would better be able to assess whether the causes of action as pleaded have been dealt with by a court previously.  In addition, whether the claimants are able on evidence presented to convince the court to pierce the corporate veil of the defendant or the companies involved seems inconsequential since the allegations in the pleadings, if established, avails them to the equitable remedies herein before mentioned,” it was further stated.

The court ordered that the case be sent to the chief justice to be assigned to a new hearing judge. Cost was also awarded.

---

• CLICO Investment Bank, Clico Life and General Insurance, Full COurt

---