CCJ upholds ruling on reversal of prescriptive title

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Friday delivered its ruling in a case of Eslene Vigilance v Roopnarine Persaud in which it agreed with the local courts that the applicant failed to prove that the contended land was acquired by fraud as claimed.

Based on a petition for prescriptive title, the land belonging to the husband of Eslene Vigilance was granted to George Estrick by the Land Court on April 11, 1994, through prescriptive title, which extinguished the previous title. It was then sold to Roopnarine Persaud.

See full statement below from the CCJ:

Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. On Friday, 20 February 2026, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ/Court) delivered judgment in Eslene Vigilance v Roopnarine Persaud [2026] CCJ 1 (AJ) GY. The CCJ dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal of Guyana and the High Court that the application to amend a statement of claim and introduce further evidence made by counsel for the Vigilance estate on the date of delivery of judgment in the High Court, was too late and that to allow the application would be prejudicial to the defence.

This case is decades old and arose from the attempt of the Vigilance estate, the Appellant, to overturn prescriptive title granted to George Estrick and the subsequent transport of the land to Roopnarine Persaud, the Respondent. The estate alleged that Estrick obtained the land by fraud, but never pleaded or proved any fraud against Persaud, who purchased the land from Estrick.

The High Court dismissed the claim finding no evidence of fraud and holding that alleged irregularities in the Land Court process did not amount to fraud capable of invalidating a registered title. On the day set for judgment, new counsel in the matter made an oral application to amend the pleadings to include particulars of fraud and to present further evidence. The trial judge refused the application and on appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial judge.

Before the CCJ, the Vigilance estate sought to have the Court of Appeal’s decision set aside arguing that the refusal to allow amendments and admit further evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice, and that the courts below erred in failing to properly assess the alleged fraudulent acquisition by Estrick and its impact on the subsequent sale to the Respondents and costs in this Court and the courts below.

In an opinion authored by the Honourable Mr Justice Barrow with Justices Jamadar, Ononaiwu, Eboe-Osuji, and Bulkan concurring, the Court held that the appeal was bound to fail because the estate’s case rested on allegations of fraud against Estrick, which were dismissed and the claim against Estrick was not pursued on appeal. By the time new counsel sought to amend the pleadings, the trial judge had already determined that there was no evidence of fraud. Without proof of fraud by Estrick, there could be no basis for alleging fraud against Persaud, who acquired a derivative title from Estrick. Mr Justice Barrow further emphasised that even if there were irregularities in the prescriptive title proceedings, such defects cannot invalidate a registered title unless actual fraud is established.

In his opinion, the Honourable Mr Justice Bulkan, with Justices Barrow, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, and Eboe-Osuji concurring, went further in analysing the underlying defects in the prescriptive title proceedings. He stressed that prescriptive title requires proof of actual, exclusive, and undisturbed possession, and that applicants must provide full, frank disclosure of all material facts. He compared Guyana’s system with the more structured approach used in Trinidad and Tobago and called for more stringent judicial oversight and legislative reform to combat any concerns about the potential for land fraud and procedural failures.

Mr Teni Housty and Ms Sydney Fraser appeared for the Appellant and Mr C. V. Satram, Mr Mahendra Satram, and Mr Ron Motilall appeared for the Respondent. The Court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the Respondent. The CCJ’s full decision is available via www.ccj.org.