IN a legal battle in 1992 over a Will relating to ownership of a huge property at Cummings & Regent Streets, Georgetown, Justice Lennox Perry dismissed plaintiff Llewellyn Singh’s claim after finding that the Will upon which his case was hinged never existed.

The judge ordered that the Action dealing with the Will — dated 9th November, 1984 and said to be made by Lawrence Emanuel Becuni Singh (deceased) in favour of the plaintiff — be dismissed.

Justice Perry added, “I am satisfied that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy this court that there ever existed a Will dated the 9th November, 1984. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed and judgment is hereby given in favour of the defendant, Lloyd Samuel Bridgewater, on his counter-claim. It is ordered that the Will, dated the 9th of June 1984 (and) introduced by the defendant as being made by Lawrence Singh (deceased) and (made) in favour of defendant, be admitted Probate in solemn form as the last Will and testament of the deceased Lawrence Singh.”

The plaintiff’s story was that Lawrence Singh had made the Will in his favour on November 9, 1984, and had died the following month, on December 10, 1984.

In his judgment, Justice Perry had said that the plaintiff had sought the following relief from the Court:

(i) That this Honourable Court decree and pronounce Probate in Solemn Form of and in favour of the Last Will and Testament of Lawrence Emanuel Becuni Singh, deceased, dated 9th November 1984, the said testator having died on 10 December 1984, having a fixed place of abode, residence and domicile in Guyana.

(ii) An injunction against the defendant restraining him and/or his servants and agents and otherwise from, in any manner, interfering with, or remaining on, the assets of the deceased estate of Lawrence Emanuel Becuni Singh, deceased.

(iii) An appointment of the plaintiff as receiver of the property and assets of the said deceased’s estate.

(iv) An order for the defendant as Executor de son tort, having intermeddled in the said estate, to account for all the assets and properties of the said deceased’s estate.
(v) Damages in excess of $1,500 against the defendant.

(vi) An injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents and otherwise, from disposing of, dealing with, or in any manner denuding the estate of its assets.

(vii) An order for the defendant to replace and return to the estate all assets, things and properties disposed of by him.

(viii) An order that the defendant do vacate and remove from the property of the deceased’s estate.

Continuing, the judge said that, in his Statement of Claim, the plaintiff said that the deceased left no other Will than the one of 9th November, 1984.

The defendant, on the other hand, sought to propound a Will purported to have been executed by the said deceased, and dated the 9th day of June 1984.

According to the judge, in respect to the Will dated the 9th day of June 1984, the plaintiff contended that:-

(a) The said Will was never signed and/or executed by the deceased.

(b) It does not and never approved the Will of the deceased, and that it goes counter and against all the expressed intentions of the deceased, the deceased having died on the 10th day of December, 1984 at his home. The defendant, the plaintiff said, has seized the possessions of the deceased, and has them in his possession.

The defendant, on the other hand, has denied all the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s statement of claim. It was disclosed by the defendant that, on the 21st day of December 1979, he purchased the disputed property at Lot 101 Regent and Cummings Streets from the deceased. The relevant documents relating to the said sale and purchase by him were duly filed at the Deeds Registry, and fees were paid on the 6th August 1980.

Justice Perry said that, despite the alleged sale of the property to the defendant, the deceased went on to execute the alleged Will dated 9th day of June 1984, naming the defendant as the sole beneficiary under the said Will.

The deceased also made other dispositions of his personal property to the defendant.

The judge noted that the Will tendered by the plaintiff, dated the 9th November 1984, which the plaintiff said was executed in his favour by the deceased on that date, was never produced in Court.

And the certificate tendered from the Deeds Registry showed that no Will had been registered by the deceased or anyone on his behalf during that period.

According to the judge, when shown the Will dated 9th June 1984, that is: the Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased in favour of the defendant, Lloyd Samuel Bridgewater, the plaintiff said the signature indicated as that of the deceased was not in fact that of the deceased.

After hearing the witnesses for the plaintiff, the judge said he formed the distinct impression that they were witnesses of convenience, who had come to support the plaintiff’s case based on what he had told them.

He added, “I am satisfied that they never witnessed any Will executed by the deceased, as they stated in their evidence. I did not believe them.”

Turning to the case for the defendant, the judge said the evidence of Attorney-at-Law Jainarayan Singh was very forceful and compelling. He is an attorney of some 40 years’ experience. He said he knew the deceased Lawrence E.B. Singh. The deceased, he said, had consulted him about the making of a Will. At that consultation, Mr Singh said, he had made notes of what the testator wanted done, and from those notes, he had prepared the Will.

At conclusion of preparation of the said Will, he had given Singh the document to read, and he himself had read it. He had examined the copy to see that the intentions of the testator were clear and had been carried out. He had asked Singh if the Will was correct, and Singh had answered in the affirmative.

Singh had then signed the said Will in his presence and in the presence of his secretary, who was the other subscribing witness.

Attorney-at-Law Jainarayan Singh had also signed as a witness to the said Will, the judge declared.

The judge said he was satisfied that the Will dated 9th June 1984 was properly and duly executed in accordance with the provisions of the Wills Act. Mr. Singh, the lawyer, had acted in a professional manner, and there was no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

The defendant, in his testimony, had said he was living with the deceased at the disputed property. He only knew the plaintiff by seeing him in Court.
Justice Perry said he was satisfied the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the Court that there ever existed a Will dated 9th November 1984. “Accordingly, the plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed, and judgment is hereby given in favour of the defendant, Lloyd Samuel Bridgewater, on his counter-claim.

“And it is ordered that the Will dated 9th of June 1984 be admitted probate in solemn form as the last will and testament of the deceased Lawrence Singh,” the judge continued.

Costs are to be taxed in favour of the defendant, both on the claim and counter-claim, the judgment declared.

By George Barclay