In a judgment delivered last week, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) rejected a special leave application to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal of Guyana.
It concerns the matter of Chandroutie Persaud and Rafudeen Nizamudin v Javen Jason Nizamudin. The regional court held that the Court of Appeal was correct in its decision that it had no legal authority to hear the case.
The crux of the matter is that Javen Nizamudin filed a so-called Fixed Date Application 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, Javen Nizamudin jointly owned this property with Persaud, the current wife of his father,
Rafudeen Nizamudin.
Persaud, however, claimed that she alone owned the property and that Javen Nizamudin’s name was only placed on the Transfer of Lease as a trustee for his father.
She explained that at the time, the latter was engaged in legal battles with his former wife, so it would have been unwise to place his name on the title. She maintained that her husband’s son never contributed to the property in any way.
But Javen Nizamudin disputed this fact, stating he assisted in the maintenance of the premises. At the High Court, Justice Navindra Singh granted an order, directing the property be sold and the proceeds be distributed equally between Javen Nizamudin and
Persaud.
Persaud and her husband filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Justice Singh.
Javen Nizamudin, however, argued that the matter in the High Court fell into the category of summary proceedings (not a full trial, mainly matters capable of being resolved quickly).
Therefore, the appeal was to be heard by the Full Court, and not the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with his submission and struck out the matter.
The couple then applied to the CCJ for special leave to appeal this decision.
At the CCJ, Counsel for them argued that the proceeding following the Fixed Date Application 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 Fixed Date Application.
However, the CCJ using several means of legal interpretation, 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 CCJ held that the action commenced by Javen Nizamudinin in the High Court was relatively fast and simple and the Court of Appeal was correct in finding they were indeed summary proceedings.
The Full Court was found to be the correct court for its appeal, the CCJ ruled. In light of the foregoing, the CCJ dismissed the special leave application and awarded costs to Javen Nizamudin.
The Court was comprised of Justices Jacob Wit, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee and Peter Jamadar.
The couple was represented by Senior Counsel Jameela Ali and Sanjeev Datadin, while Javen Nizamudin was represented by Anil Nandlall and Anuradha Deodasingh.
