Toolsie Persaud Ltd v Andrew James Investments Ltd et Al

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtCaribbean Court of Justice
Judgede la Bastide, P., Nelson, J.A., Pollard, J.A., Wit, J.A., Hayton, J.A.
Judgment Date15 Jul 2008
Docket NumberCCJ Appeal No CV 1 of 2006; GY Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2004

Caribbean Court of Justice

de la Bastide, P.; Nelson, J.A.; Pollard, J.A.; Wit, J.A.; Hayton, J.A.

CCJ Appeal No CV 1 of 2006; GY Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2004

Toolsie Persaud Limited
Andrew James Investments Limited et al

Real property - Prescription — Whether respondents' titles extinguished by adverse possession of the appellant — Appellant declared to be entitled to be registered as owner of first respondent's land — Appellant's petition in respect of rest of land of which the States was owner was dismissed.


Summary of judgment delivered by the Caribbean Court of Justice on the 15th July, 2008


This appeal from the Court of Appeal of Guyana stems from a petition by Toolsie Persaud Limited (the appellant) in which the appellant claimed to have acquired a prescriptive title to a tract of land (“the tract”) comprising areas owned respectively by Andrew James Investments Limited (the first respondent), Shiviochnie Singh (the second respondent) and the State of Guyana (“the State”) which was represented by its Attorney-General (the Third respondent). The whole tract had been the subject of a Compulsory Acquisition Order of 8th June 1977(“the CAO”) which appeared to have vested title to it in the State one month later. In October 1987 the State contracted to sell the whole tract to the appellant by an agreement which conferred on the appellant the right to take possession immediately subject to payment by the appellant of one-third of the purchase price. The appellant paid one-third of the purchase price upon execution of the agreement but delayed taking possession until April 1988, in order to permit a crop of special grass to be harvested by a licensee of the State.


In March 1989 the first respondent filed a constitutional motion against the State to have the CAO and the State's acquisition of title under it of the first respondent's area of land declared invalid. Kissoon J so declared in May 1990, and the first respondent had title put back in its name. An appeal by the State to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in March 1995.


In November 1989 the second respondent filed a similar constitutional motion against the State in respect of her area of land. Taking account of the March 1995 Court of Appeal judgment in the first respondent's favour, the second respondent in July 1995 obtained a consent order from Trotman, J declaring the CAO to be of no effect and enabling her to have title to her land put back in her name.



To continue reading

Request your trial