Ramdass v Jairam et Al

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Bastide, P.,Nelson, J.A.,Pollard, J.A.,Saunders, J.A.,Bernard, J.A.,Wit, J.A.,Hayton, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 22 August 2008
• Court: Caribbean Court of Justice
• Docket Number: CCJ Appeal No CV 3 of 2006; GY Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2000
• Date: 22 August 2008

Caribbean Court of Justice

Bastide, P.; Nelson, J.A.; Pollard, J.A.; Saunders, J.A.; Bernard, J.A.; Wit, J.A.; Hayton, J.A.

CCJ Appeal No CV 3 of 2006; GY Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2000

Ramdass

and

Jairam et al

Real property - Agreement for sale of land — Sale to another party — Equitable interest in land not recognised in Guyana — Order for specific performance refused.

1 Summary of judgment delivered by the Caribbean Court of Justice on the 22nd day of July 2008

2 This appeal originated from an agreement of sale dated 18th April 1984 under which Loki, deceased, agreed to sell to her brother, Ramdass, the appellant, 36 acres of land situate at No. 19 Corentyne, Berbice, for the sum of $30,000.00. The appellant entered into possession of the land in accordance with the agreement of sale. On 21st March, 1986, Loki sold to one Ali Mohamed for the sum of $125,000.00 all of the land which she had inherited from her husband and which included the 36 acres sold earlier to the appellant.

3 On 5th May, 1987 Loki passed transport to Mohamed, and upon discovery of this development, the appellant filed an action against Loki, Mohamed, and the Registrar of Deeds seeking specific performance of his agreement with Loki and revocation of Mohamed's transport.

4 The appellant alleged in his pleadings that Loki and Mohamed had fraudulently passed transport to Mohamed in order “to defraud” him of the property, but gave no particulars of the alleged fraud. At the commencement of the hearing the allegation of fraud was withdrawn by counsel for the appellant. This having been done counsel sought to rely on Mohamed's actual notice of the appellant's occupation of the land, and argued that Mohamed could not be said to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Further, he sought to persuade the trial judge that the appellant had acquired an equitable interest in the land.

5 The trial judge held that equitable interests in immovable property are not recognised in Guyana, and refused the order for specific performance as well as the claim for a revocation of Mohamed's transport.

6 The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that equitable interests in immovable property are not recognised in Guyana.

7 The appellant with leave of the Court of Appeal appealed to this court, but before the hearing Loki died, and with leave of this court one Salim...