Parents in property battle with son lose CCJ challenge over appeal

In a judgment released by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) yesterday, a special-leave application to appeal a decision of the Guyana Court of Appeal was rejected in a property case between Rafudeen Nizamudin and Chandroutie Persaud and their son, Javen Nizamudin.

The Trinidad-based CCJ—the court of last resort for Guyana—found that the local appellate court was correct in its decision that it had no jurisdiction to hear that matter.

According to a release from the court, Javen had filed a “so-called” fixed date application (FDA) in the High Court of Guyana for the sale of a property and his share of the proceeds of the sale. According to a transfer of lease, he jointly owned this property with Persaud, the wife of his father Rafudeen Nizamudin.

Persaud, however, claimed that she alone owned the property and that Javen, her stepson, was only placed on the lease as a trustee for his father.

Persaud had deposed that at the time, Rafudeen was engaged in legal battles with his former wife, so it would have been unwise to place his name on the title.

According to her, Javen never contributed to the property in any way. Javen, however, disputed this fact, stating that he assisted in the maintenance of the premises. In the proceedings before the High Court, Justice Navindra Singh ruled in Javen’s favour, while directing that the property be sold and the proceeds be distributed equally between Javen and Persaud. Persaud and Rafudeen would later appeal this decision to the Court of Appeal.

Javen, however, argued that the High Court matter fell into the category of summary proceedings (not a full trial, mainly matters capable of being resolved quickly) and that therefore, the appeal was to be heard by the Full Court, and not the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with Javen and struck out the appeal.

Persaud and Rafudeen subsequently applied to the CCJ for special leave to appeal this decision.

The court noted in its release that Persaud and Rafudeen’s attorney had argued that the proceeding following the FDA in the High Court could not have been a summary proceeding, since the matter required analysis of the merits and one could not obtain summary judgment using the FDA.

The CCJ, however, said that using several means of legal interpretation, it decided that the meaning of ‘summary proceedings’ included cases which could be resolved quickly after the filing of the matter, without the need for the full and normal processes in the court.

The court further held that the action commenced by Javen in the High Court was relatively fast and simple and that the Court of Appeal was correct in finding they were indeed summary proceedings and that the Full Court was found to be the correct court for its appeal.

In the circumstances, the CCJ dismissed the special leave application and awarded costs to Javen.

The matter was heard by Justices Jacob Wit, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee and Peter Jamadar.

Persaud and Rafudeen were represented by attorneys Sanjeev Datadin and Jameela Ali SC.

Javen, meanwhile, was represented by attorneys Anil Nandlall and Anuradha Deodasingh.