A PROMISSORY note, followed by a judgement and a court order precipitated a series of events that eventuated in the law firm of AFC Leader and Speaker of the House, Raphael Trotman, specifically Trotman’s mother, Attorney-at-Law, Sheila Chapman, being taken before the Legal Practitioners Committee on charges of perjury and fraud. Complicit in this matter is Chapman associate, Attorney-at-Law Raphael Trotman, by way of an affidavit drawn on 20th November 1996 by himself, Sheila Chapman, and Avril Trotman.

Legal documents attest to Drupatie Persaud having obtained a Guyana High Court judgment by Justice Lennox Perry against the estate of the late Baldeo Ramgolam, based on a promissory note dated 28th March 1983 for the sum of two hundred and ninety-four thousand, eight hundred and seventy-five U.S. dollars.
Speedy probate of the assets was promised by counsel for the Ramgolam estate, executrix Chandra Ramgolam, Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman, but this did not fructify in a timely manner.
In the interim, the relatives of Baldeo Ramgolam were dissipating and further devaluing, through vandalism, the assets of the estate which, through devaluation of the Guyana dollar, could provide only part payment of the debt for which Persaud had been awarded judgment by the courts.
Because the judgment awardee, Drupatie Persaud, resided in Canada, upon her request, Justice Kenneth Barnwell, on 21st July 1986, appointed Prakash Persaud receiver of the Ramgolam estate in partial settlement of the indebtedness to Drupatie Persaud, with the consent in court of both executrix of the Ramgolam estate, Chandra Ramgolam, and her Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman.
Both Chandra Ramgolam and her Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman nominated the brother of the executrix, Deeneshwar Ramgolam, to hand over the assets of the Ramgolam estate to Prakash Persaud, and on 31st July, 1986, in the High Court before Justice Kenneth Barnwell, Deeneshwar Ramgolam submitted hand-over statements to Prakash Persaud.
Upon instructions from Justice Barnwell for speedy probate, Chandra Ramgolam and her attorney, Sheila Chapman, stated by way of affidavit of 5th June, 1986, that they expected to obtain probate within two months, but this was not honoured and probate was not obtained until August, 1992,- six years later, and disregarding legal requirements, Prakash Persaud was not informed when probate was granted.
In the application for probate via a supplementary affidavit by Chandra Ramgolam, drawn by Sheila Chapman, she categorically avers in Paragraph 2 “that on the 21st day of July, 1986, Mr. Prakash Persaud was named receiver by Mr. Justice Barnwell and he has been in possession of all the assets since that date.”
This document indicates the knowledge of both Chandra Ramgolam and Sheila Chapman that all the assets of the deceased were now legally in the possession of Prakash Persaud, the agent of the Plaintiff, who was merely awaiting probate of the estate.
However, in the affidavit for probate sworn by Chandra Ramgolam and drawn by Sheila Chapman, all the immovable properties were declared by their transport numbers, except for 768 acres of lands with sawmill and related equipment at Plantation Clemwood, Demerara River. These, being a part of the Ramgolam estate, were also included in the judgment award and legally belonged to the Plaintiff Drupati Persaud.
But an illegal Agreement of Sale on 6th October, 1993, witnessed by Sheila Chapman and one Lorna Bayley, purported to give by the vendor Chandra Ramgolam to the purchaser Mahendra Jettoo “immediate possession” of the Clemwood properties.
Sheila Chapman proved herself in complicity with the questionable sale when, on the same day she wrote, representing Chandra Ramlagan as attorney, to caretaker Jerry Dhanpaul, advising him of the sale and terminating permission for his residing on the premises, in full and confident knowledge that these properties were the legal entitlement, under judgement and court order, of Drupatie Persaud, with Prakash Persaud as legally appointed receiver.
After signing the illegal Agreement of Sale, Sheila Chapman, on 30th April, 1996, three years later, signed as Attorney-at-Law for Chandra Ramgolam and instructed the Registrar of Deeds of Guyana to advertise the transport of the 768 acres of land at Plantation Clemwood. The transport number was not mentioned, nor advertised, which is a legal prerequisite.
This was in response to challenges by Mr. Prakash Persaud on the legality of the sale, with those culpable attempting to authenticate the sale with an affidavit drawn on 20th November, 1996, by Attorneys-at-Law Sheila Chapman, Avril Trotman, and Raphael C.C. Trotman, praying for an order from the High Court of Judicature for Chandra Ramgolam to sell the Clemwood properties, which had already been sold to him three years back, on 6th October 1993, when “immediate possession” had been given to the Vendor, who still retained possession of the properties up to that point.
Prakash Persaud then wrote to Madame Chief Justice Desiree Bernard, seeking her intervention. She responded favourably and the applicants then abandoned that course.
In the interim, Persaud attempted assiduously to obtain the transport for the Clemwood lands, but they had apparently been already removed.
Through a highly irregular Consent Order No. 958, in which a transport number was not indicated, dated 27th October, 1998, Chandra Ramgolam and Sheila Chapman conspired to pass a transport for the Clemwood properties , No. 1956/98, to Mahendra Jettoo, which obviously involved the complicity of a member of the Deeds Registry, which is another criminal offence, because it involved bribery.
Chief Justice Carl Singh, upon complaints from Persaud, enquired on the matter of Sheila Chapman, to which she informed him that Prakash Persaud was  entitled to receive only the movable assets from the estate of the late Baldeo Ramgolam, knowing this to be a false claim.
Six months after Jettoo obtained the questionable transport, the Clemwood properties were advertised for sale in the Official Gazette. The sale was challenged by Persaud and Justices Carl Singh and Roy, sitting in the Full Court, found that all the assets, including immovable properties, which included the Clemwood lands, were indeed in receivership, with Persaud being the receiver.
By way of Order No. 95 of 2002, they restrained Jettoo from effecting any conveyance of the property to anyone or any entity.
On 14th February,1999, Ramgolam executrix, Chandra Ramgolam, voluntarily visited Persaud at his home and expressed remorse for her actions, claiming to have been “misled and misguided” by her legal firm, Trotman, Chapman and Associates.
She promised to hand over to Persaud the unspent amount that had been received from Sheila Chapman after the irregular sale of the Clemwood properties to Jettoo.

Khemraj Ramjattan also accused of fraud by client
For the inconvenience of loss of time measuring years, the loss of properties and income, and the stress related to the fraudulent acts perpetrated against him and his mother-in-law, which he feels contributed in  great measure to his ill-health, Prakash Persaud, acting upon advisement of then Attorney-General Doodnauth Singh, took Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman before the Legal Practitioners Committee upon charges of fraud and perjury.
He appointed Khemraj Ramjattan to represent him in the matter and paid him in advance. However, although Ramjattan had collected his fees, he did not appear to represent Persaud, but instead Ramjattan severely admonished him in strong language, ending his tirade with, “I have to consider fraternity.”
Persaud also charged that, in the midst of the legal engagements on the matter, Ramjattan had told him warningly that Trotman had questioned him why he was fighting such a case when the court had already ruled.
The Petitioner said that he was treated before the Legal Practitioners Committee as if he was the one on trial, and that when he had requested a copy of the case file, to which he was entitled, he discovered several pertinent documents missing.
A copy of the “fly Leaf” of the proceedings of the case was in the file and Persaud said he was appalled by the comments that there was “no lawyer and client relationship.”
But Cap. 4: 01 – 24 states that an application can be made by “a client or other person aggrieved…”.
Persaud claimed that the actions of this attorney, backed by her associates, caused him much loss, as the Ramgolam estate was insolvent and could not have covered the full indebtedness of the deceased.
He said the only part of the estate that had some degree of value was the Clemwood lands, the full value of which he was robbed; yet until today he could get no redress – either through the Legal Practitioners Committee or through the justice system, and all the attorneys complicit in this situation, including his own attorney, Khemraj Ramjattan, whose non-representation has enabled the statute of limitations to be exhausted, denying him the right of appeal, which Ramjattan as a lawyer was aware would be the consequence of his non-representation, have not been sanctioned in any way.
Like many Guyanese, Persaud is questioning the viability of the justice system in Guyana and is calling upon the Chief Justice to investigate and pronounce on his matter so that he can obtain redress against his lawyer, Ramjattan, and the law firm of Trotman, Chapman and Associates.
However, Ramgolam’s widow, Parbatie, who had been witness to the promissory note handwritten by her husband, and who was aware that her husband’s insolvent estate could not adequately compensate for his indebtedness, had agreed wholeheartedly to the transferral of the Ramgolam estate to the Plaintiff, Drupattie Persaud, and had given full responsibility for that undertaking to Attorney-at-Law Sheila Chapman and their relative Chandra Ramgolam, before she departed Guyana; and she is appalled that such despicable acts were committed by persons whom she entrusted to honour her late husband’s memory by dispensing with his indebtedness to the extent of the ability of his possessions to so do.
She has consequently appointed another executor of the estate to take legal action against those who committed those fraudulent acts.