Daniel Ramlagan substituted by Ramkumarie Ramlagan Applicant v Narine Singh substituted by Saiojine Singh Respondent

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtCaribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction)
JudgeJustices Nelson,Saunders,Wit,Hayton,Anderson,Mr Justice Nelson
Judgment Date21 Mar 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] CCJ 5 AJ
Docket NumberCCJ Application No CV 11 of 2013

[2014] CCJ 5 (AJ)

IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Appellate Jurisdiction

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF GUYANA

Before

The Honourables

Mr Justice R Nelson

Mr. Justice A Saunders

Mr Justice J Wit

Mr Justice D Hayton

Mr Justice W Anderson

CCJ Application No CV 11 of 2013

GY Civil Appeal No 115 of 2004

Between
Daniel Ramlagan substituted by Ramkumarie Ramlagan
Applicant
and
Narine Singh substituted by Saiojine Singh
Respondent
Appearances

Mr Roopnarine Satram and Mr. C V Satram for the Applicant

Mr Khemraj Ramjattan for the Respondent

JUDGMENT of Justices Nelson, Saunders, Wit, HaytonandAnderson

Delivered by The Honourable Mr Justice Nelson on the 21 st day of March 2014

1

On February 18, 2014 the Court heard this application in Guyana and granted special leave to appeal. The Court now states in outline its reasons for that decision.

2

These proceedings relate to a dispute over a two-acre parcel of land out of a larger parcel of twelve acres. The Applicant, Ramlagan, contends that he and his predecessors in title (“the Ramlagans”) were always in possession of the disputed parcel, having acquired prescriptive title thereto by transport No. 48 of 1984. The Respondent (Narine Singh) claims that in 1975 he purchased land from Ramdularie, which included the disputed two-acre parcel and occupied the disputed parcel from 1975 to 1991 until the Ramlagans entered upon it in 1992. This application is for special leave to appeal against so much of the decision of the Court of Appeal dated July 29, 2013 that affirms in part the decision dated December 6, 2004 of Cummings J, as she then was.

3

The learned judge held that the disputed two acres should have been excluded from the twelve acres transported to the Applicant's parents and sibling, Hamil, by transport No. 48 of 1984 pursuant to an order of the High Court dated August 10, 1983. That order of Cummings J dated December 6, 2004 was based on a rejection by the court of a contention that the Ramlagans had been occupying the twelve acres including the two-acre parcel continuously.

4

Cummings J. held that “title having been passed and registered in their favour in respect of that two-acre portion, should be set aside on the basis of fraud.” Cummings J held that in obtaining title to the twelve acres the Ramlagans had fraudulently failed to disclose the occupation of the disputed two-acre parcel by Singh since 1975.

5

The Court of Appeal reversed that finding of fraud since “no fraud had been laid at the door of the transportees”, in the sense that no proof of fraud in the obtaining of title by the Ramlagans was put...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Guyana Sugar Corporation Inc. Appellant v Chandradat Dhanessar Respondent
    • Caribbean Community
    • Caribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction)
    • April 14, 2015
    ...374; Meenavali v Georgia Matute [2014] CCJ 8 (AJ). 3Meenavali v Georgia Matute [2014] CCJ 8 (AJ) at [4] and Ramlagan v Narine Singh [2014] CCJ 5 (AJ) at 4Benmax v Austin Motor Company [1955] AC 370 and Continental Biscuit Company Ltd v Albert Joseph Shanks (1977) 24 WIR 267 (CA). 5Runa Begu......
  • Rosemarie Ramdehol v Haimwant Ramdehol
    • Caribbean Community
    • Caribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction)
    • October 12, 2017
    ...to negate the recurrence of this type of delay. 1 [2001] 1 WLR 1630. 2 [2007] UKPC 19. 3 [1896] 2 Ch. D. 105 . 4 [2008] CCJ 12 (AJ) . 5 [2014] CCJ 5 (AJ) 6 [2016] CCJ 07 (AJ) . 7 As noted by Lord Kincraig in Milne v Milne. 1987 SLT 45 at 47. See also Thomson v Thomson 1982 SLT 521, Elder v ......