PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, CMC – The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has dismissed a decades old land dispute case, agreeing with the lower courts in Guyana that the application to amend a statement of claim and introduce further evidence on the date of delivery of the judgment in the High Court, was too late and that to allow the application would be prejudicial to the defence.
The CCJ gave its ruling in the case of Eslene Vigilance versus Roopnarine Persaud that arose from the attempt of the Vigilance estate, the appellant, to overturn a prescriptive title granted to George Estrick and the subsequent transfer of the land to Roopnarine Persaud, the respondent.
The estate alleged that Estrick obtained the land by fraud, but never pleaded or proved any fraud against Persaud, who purchased the land from Estrick.
The High Court dismissed the claim, finding no evidence of fraud and holding that alleged irregularities in the Land Court process did not amount to fraud capable of invalidating a registered title.
On the day set for judgment, new counsel in the matter made an oral application to amend the pleadings to include particulars of fraud and to present further evidence. The trial judge refused the application, and on appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.
When the matter came before the CCJ, Guyana’s highest and final court, the Vigilance estate sought to have the Court of Appeal’s decision set aside, arguing that the refusal to allow amendments and to admit further evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
It also argued that the courts below erred in failing to properly assess the alleged fraudulent acquisition by Estrick and its impact on the subsequent sale to the respondents, as well as the costs in this court and the courts below.
But in an opinion authored by Justice Denys Barrow, with four other judges concurring, the CCJ held that the appeal would fail because the estate’s case rested on allegations of fraud against Estrick, which had been dismissed. The claim against Estrick was not pursued on appeal.
It noted that by the time new counsel sought to amend the pleadings, the trial judge had already determined that there was no evidence of fraud. Without proof of fraud by Estrick, there could be no basis for alleging fraud against Persaud, who acquired a derivative title from Estrick.
Justice Barrow further emphasised that even if there were irregularities in the prescriptive title proceedings, such defects cannot invalidate a registered title unless actual fraud is established.
In his opinion, Justice Arif Bulkan went further in analysing the underlying defects in the prescriptive title proceedings, stressing that prescriptive title requires proof of actual, exclusive, and undisturbed possession. Applicants must provide full, frank disclosure of all material facts.
He compared Guyana’s system with the more structured approach in Trinidad and Tobago. He called for more stringent judicial oversight and legislative reform to address concerns about the potential for land fraud and procedural failures.
and then  has dismissed a decades old land dispute case, agreeing with the lower courts in Guyana){kind=link}