The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has dismissed an appeal in the long-running land dispute Eslene Vigilance v Roopnarine Persaud [2026] CCJ 1 (AJ) GY, affirming earlier rulings by Guyana’s High Court and Court of Appeal while providing guidance on evidentiary requirements in prescriptive title and fraud cases.
In a judgment delivered on Friday, February 20, 2026 from Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, the Court agreed with the decisions of the lower courts that an application by counsel for the Vigilance estate to amend its statement of claim and introduce further evidence on the day judgment was to be delivered in the High Court was made too late and would have prejudiced the defence.
The dispute, which spans decades, arose from the Vigilance estate’s attempt to overturn prescriptive title granted to George Estrick and the subsequent transport of the land to Roopnarine Persaud. While the estate alleged that Estrick obtained the land by fraud, it did not plead or prove fraud against Persaud, who later purchased the property from Estrick.
The High Court dismissed the claim, finding no evidence of fraud and ruling that alleged irregularities in the Land Court process were insufficient to invalidate a registered title. On the day judgment was scheduled, newly retained counsel made an oral application to amend the pleadings to include particulars of fraud and to submit additional evidence. The trial judge refused the application, a decision later upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Before the CCJ, the Vigilance estate argued that the refusal to allow amendments and admit further evidence amounted to a miscarriage of justice and that the courts below failed to properly assess the alleged fraudulent acquisition by Estrick and its effect on the subsequent sale to Persaud.
In the lead opinion authored by Justice Adrian Saunders 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 centred on allegations of fraud against Estrick that had already been dismissed and were not pursued on appeal. The Court noted that by the time new counsel sought to amend the pleadings, the trial judge had determined there was no evidence of fraud.
The judgment further stated that without proof of fraud by Estrick, there could be no basis for alleging fraud against Persaud, whose title derived from Estrick. Justice Barrow emphasised that even if irregularities existed in the prescriptive title proceedings, such defects could not invalidate a registered title unless actual fraud was established.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Bulkan examined broader concerns about prescriptive title proceedings, stressing that applicants must demonstrate actual, exclusive and undisturbed possession and provide full and frank disclosure of all material facts. He also compared Guyana’s system with the more structured approach in Trinidad and Tobago, calling for stronger judicial oversight and legislative reform to address potential risks of land fraud and procedural shortcomings.
The Vigilance estate was represented by Mr Teni Housty and Ms Sydney Fraser, while Mr C. V. Satram, Mr Mahendra Satram and Mr Ron Motilall appeared for Persaud. The CCJ dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.
The Court’s full decision is available on the CCJ’s website or click here
View the recording of the judgment delivery here:
