CCJ upholds 1990 Essequibo Coast land sale, overturns COA possession order

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled in favour of Janet Hassan in a long-running land dispute on the Essequibo Coast, Region Two (Pomeroon-Supenaam), overturning a Court of Appeal decision which had ordered her to surrender possession of the property.
In a unanimous judgement delivered on November 3, 2026, the regional court held that a handwritten receipt issued in 1990 constituted evidence of an agreement for the sale of the land, rather than merely granting permission to occupy it.
The ruling also set aside a separate $300,000 costs order imposed on Hassan by the Court of Appeal and directed that the money be repaid by Romanie Gouveia, the respondent in the case, by December 3, 2026.
The dispute concerns Plot B at Spring Garden, Essequibo Coast, which was the subject of a transaction between Eric Sue and Hassan’s husband, Abdool Hassan, on May 24, 1990.
The handwritten receipt, signed by Sue, acknowledged payment of $2235 for the use of the property, which was reserved for road straightening, and stated that no transport could be issued. It also recorded that the payment was made in full and referred to the erection of house structures on the land.
Gouveia, who is the executrix of Sue’s estate and the transported owner of the property, subsequently brought a claim for possession against Hassan in the High Court in September 2000.
In 2009, the trial Judge, James Bovell-Drakes, dismissed the claim after finding that the receipt was authentic and represented a legally binding agreement for the sale of the land by Sue to Abdool Hassan.
However, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in July 2025, finding that the receipt amounted to a licence to occupy the property rather than an agreement transferring an interest in the land.
Hassan was ordered to give up possession by December 1, 2025, and pay $175,000 in costs.
She subsequently appealed to the CCJ, which examined the wording of the receipt alongside the circumstances surrounding the transaction.
In its judgement, the five-member panel found that the Court of Appeal had placed too much emphasis on particular words in the receipt without adequately considering the wider circumstances in which it was prepared.
The CCJ noted that Abdool Hassan needed a place to live with his wife and their four children and intended to construct a house on the property. It also considered that Sue was generally known to sell parcels of land in the area.
The court further pointed to the words “Full Payment” on the receipt, the provision for constructing houses and the absence of any specified period during which the property could be occupied.
Addressing the statement that no transport could be issued, the CCJ found that the road reservation provided an explanation for that restriction.
It also noted that Sue was not the transported owner of the property during his lifetime, providing another reason why he could not issue a transport to Abdool Hassan.
The court said that, when the receipt was considered as a whole and against the relevant factual and contractual background, it evidenced an agreement by Sue to sell the land.
Consequently, the CCJ allowed Hassan’s appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal’s July 2025 judgement and restored the original High Court order dismissing Gouveia’s claim for possession.
The court also addressed the $300,000 costs award made by the Court of Appeal on March 19, 2026, when it granted Hassan permission to appeal to the CCJ but refused to stay the order requiring her to surrender the property.

The regional court observed that the Court of Appeal had provided no reasons for imposing the amount, which was approximately 42 per cent higher than the costs awarded in the substantive appeal.
It further noted that the application for leave to appeal and a stay of execution was routine and had been partly successful, since Hassan was granted permission to take the matter to the CCJ.
The court considered the award excessive and disproportionate, particularly given that Hassan had also been ordered to provide $500,000 as security for costs.
The CCJ stressed that arbitrary or significantly disproportionate cost orders could undermine access to justice and procedural fairness by discouraging people from pursuing legitimate claims or making their right to a fair hearing difficult to exercise.
The costs order was therefore set aside, with the court directing that the costs associated with the application for leave to appeal should abide the costs of the appeal before the CCJ.
Gouveia was ordered to repay the $300,000 to Hassan by December 3, 2026. She was also ordered to pay Hassan’s standard costs before the CCJ, as well as costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
The appeal was heard by Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, Eboe-Osuji and Bulkan. The judgement was authored by Justices Rajnauth-Lee and Jamadar, with the other three Judges concurring.
Seenath Jairam SC, Abiola Wong-Inniss, Ashley King, Joel Ross, Akeeta Kingston and Paula Gomes represented Hassan, while Arudranauth Gossai appeared for Gouveia.