Grants special leave to poor person to appeal
CARIBBEAN Court of Justice (CCJ) President, Michael de la Bastide, before demitting office, has reportedly criticized the Guyana Court of Appeal for its action in a civil matter where a poor person had been denied leave to appeal as a poor person, because of unjustified actions. The decision by the Rt. Hon. Justice Michael de la Bastide (President) with four other judges, added: “In all the circumstances, the action of the Court of Appeal in this case was unjustified and wrong as there was no basis for treating the Notice of Appeal as vitiated by fraud. This appeal must therefore be allowed. The case is remitted to the Court of Appeal to be heard on the merits.”
In his introduction, President de la Bastide said, “On 4th October, 2010, we heard and determined by audio conference applications in this matter for special leave to appeal and for leave to appeal as a poor person. So as to save costs, we had previously indicated to the parties that they should deploy both their oral and written submissions in a way that would permit us, without more, to render a decision on the appeal itself, if indeed we were persuaded that special leave to appeal should be granted.
“We decided then that special leave to appeal should be granted but that leave to appeal as a poor person should be denied. Because of our reluctance to dispose of an appeal without giving the parties the opportunity of having their respective cases by attorneys physically present in court, we fixed the 14th October, 2010 for determination of the substantive appeal at the Seat of the Court.
“We made it clear to the parties that while they were entitled to avail themselves of the opportunity to be present, we neither required nor expected their presence when we sat to determine the substantive appeal and in fact, neither side made any further submissions at that sitting. Having considered all the submissions made earlier on 4th October, 2010, and those given in writing, this is our judgment.”

BACKGROUND FACTS
The parties to this action were originally Mr. Narine Singh, as plaintiff and Mr. Daniel Ramlagan, as defendant. Their dispute is over the ownership of two acres of land. The case was heard at first instance by Madame Justice Cummings. In a written judgment delivered on 6th December, 2004, the judge found in favour of Mr. Singh and awarded him all the relief claimed in his Statement of Claim. A Notice of Appeal was filed on 22nd   December, 2004.  Mr. Ramlagan died almost a year later.   For the purpose of prosecuting the appeal, Mr. Ramlagan was succeeded by his widow as ‘administratrix ad litem’.
The appeal was heard in December 2009, almost five years after it was filed. During the course of the hearing, the Court of Appeal, of its own motion, drew attention to the Notice of Appeal that had given rise to the appeal. The Notice had properly been signed by Mr. Clifton Llewellyn John who had acted as Attorney for Mr. Ramlagan in the High Court. Below and to the left of Mr. John’s signature was a dotted line above the printed word “APPELLANT”. On this dotted line someone (possibly Mr. John himself) had written in pen, in block letters, the name “RAMLAGAN”.
During the course of the appeal, the Court of Appeal noticed this handwritten name and became suspicious.   The presiding judge asked that Mrs.  Ramlagan, who was in the court room, be shown the name ‘’RAMLAGAN’’ handwritten on the Notice of Appeal. She was then asked if that was her husband’s signature. She said that it was not and on her own initiative she produced his identification card to show what his signature looked like. The Court of Appeal then concluded that the handwritten “RAMLAGAN” was a forgery, a fraud in the face of the court” which it could not ignore. 
Accounts differ as to what course of action was adopted by Mr.  Mohanlall, representing Mrs. Ramlagan at the time in response to this surprising turn of events. Mr. Singh’s attorney allege that Mr. Mohanlall “conceded” the “forgery” and invited the court to dismiss the appeal.
Mrs. Ramlagan’s version of events does not support this.   She states in one affidavit that after the Court of Appeal came to its conclusion as to forgery, Mr. Mohanlall remarked “that the Honourable Court is free to make any finding and rule as it sees fit”.
In another affidavit, was her concern that in relation to the appeal, her lawyer “was denied audience and the matter was dismissed”.  In any event, the court dismissed the appeal and the order reflecting the dismissal does indicate that the dismissal was consensual. No reasoned judgment has ever been produced by the Court of Appeal in this case.
Mrs. Ramlagan, dissatisfied with the dismissal of the appeal, applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to this court. But the Court of Appeal also dismissed that application. It was in light of that latter dismissal that she came to this court seeking special leave to appeal and, leave to appeal as a poor person.
The Court of Appeal was wrong to treat the name “RAMLAGAN”, handwritten on capital letters not even joined together, as a purported signature of Daniel Ramlagan.  But even if the Court of Appeal entertained some concern over someone other than Mr. Ramlagan having written his name in the place provided for his signature, the manner in which the court went about probing this matter left much to be desired.
In all the circumstances, the action of the Court of Appeal on this case was unjustified and wrong as there was no basis for treating the Notice of Appeal as vitiated by fraud. This appeal must therefore be allowed.  The case is emitted to the Court of Appeal to be heard on the merits.
“Since the respondent sought to the very end to justify the decision of the Court of Appeal, it is only reasonable that he should pay the costs of the appeal to the court including the costs of the application to this court for special leave to appeal, to be taxed, if not agreed. The order for costs made by the Court of Appeal against the appellant when it dismissed the appeal is quashed.
“Almost six years have elapsed since the notice of appeal was filed.  We expect therefore that the appeal will be re-listed for hearing without delay,” the retired President of the CCJ has said.