[2014] CCJ 5 (AJ)

IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Appellate Jurisdiction
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF GUYANA

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

JUDGMENT SUMMARY

[1]

The dispute underlying this application for special leave relates to a two-acre parcel of
land, which was itself part of a larger parcel of twelve acres.

[2]

The Applicant for special leave, Mr. Ramlagan (now substituted by his wife), contended
that he and his predecessors in title were always in possession of the disputed parcel. The
Ramlagans claimed they had acquired a possessory title which was formally recognized
by an order of the Land Court Judge which matured into a transport No. 48 of 1984. The
Respondent, Narine Singh, however, claimed that in 1975 he purchased a plot of land
including the disputed parcel and occupied that parcel from 1975 to 1991.

[3]

The trial judge held that the disputed two acres should not have been included in
transport No. 48 of 1984. The learned trial judge did not accept that the Ramlagans were
occupying the disputed two-acre parcel of the twelve acres at the time the Land Court

Judge made his order so title to the two-acre parcel should therefore be set aside for
fraud.

[4]

The Court of Appeal refused to set aside Ramlagans title in relation to the disputed twoacre parcel for fraud, thus impliedly accepting that the Ramlagans, and not Narine Singh,
were in occupation at the time of the order of the Land Court Judge. Nonetheless, the
Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judges finding of fact that Narine Singh was already
in possession of the disputed two-acre parcel and had been there since 1975.

[5]

In that context, the Court held that because of what might appear to be conflicting
conclusions of the Court of Appeal in respect of the occupation of Narine Singh of the
disputed two-acre parcel and the trial judges order (as drawn up) apparently declaring
that Narine Singh had title to the disputed land, exceptional circumstances existed which
would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal what was essentially an issue of fact.

[6]

The Court granted special leave to appeal, but found there was insufficient evidence to
grant leave to appeal as a poor person. The Court further ordered costs to follow the
event of the appeal.

This summary is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Caribbean Court of
Justice or to be used in any later consideration of the Courts reasons.