CCJ confirms validity of prescriptive title in decades-old Guyana land dispute

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Friday delivered Judgement in Eslene Vigilance v Roopnarine Persaud [2026], in which it 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 Judgement in the High Court was too late and that to allow the application would be prejudicial to the defence.
The Vigilance estate’s appeal was its final attempt to overturn the grant of prescriptive title and subsequent sale of land at Coverden, East Bank, Demerara, on grounds of fraud. In a 2010 Judgement, the High Court upheld the prescriptive title granted to George Estrick in 1994, extinguishing the Vigilance estate’s claim. Estrick then transferred the land to Roopnarine Persaud in 1996, and this title was challenged all the way to the CCJ.
In a release from the CCJ it was stated that the 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 Judgement, 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 Justice Denys Barrow with Justices Peter Jamadar, Chantal Ononaiwu, Chile Eboe-Osuji, and Arif 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. 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, 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.
Attorneys Teni Housty and Sydney Fraser appeared for the Appellant, and C V Satram, Mahendra Satram, and Ron Motilall appeared for the Respondent. The Court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the Respondent.