THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, dismissed the appeal brought by Hardat Singh in the civil matter GY/A/CV2024/002 Hardat Singh v Ann Narine, upholding the rulings of the Guyanese courts and lifting a stay that had temporarily blocked the sale of Singh’s Queenstown property.
The ruling clears the path for the enforcement of a money judgement in favour of Ms. Ann Narine, who claimed that Singh had agreed to repay her US $300,000 under a written document she believed to be a promissory note.

Although Guyana’s Chief Justice (Ag), Madam Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire, ruled the document did not qualify as a promissory note in the legal sense, she accepted it as a binding contract. On April 20, 2021, the High Court awarded judgement in Narine’s favour after Singh failed to appear or file a defence.
Singh subsequently challenged the ruling in multiple courts, filing appeals with the Full Court and the Court of Appeal in Guyana—both of which upheld the original decision. He then took the matter to the CCJ, listing 21 grounds of appeal in his attempt to overturn the judgement.

However, the CCJ found that Singh had failed to follow the correct legal procedure by not applying to set aside the original judgement under Rule 39.07 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Instead of seeking a rehearing based on his absence, Singh pursued appeals at each judicial level, which the CCJ considered an abuse of process.
Delivering the Court’s decision, the panel—comprising Justices Anderson, Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, Jamadar, and Ononaiwu—emphasised that Singh’s actions appeared to be a deliberate attempt to avoid giving a valid explanation under oath for his absence at trial.

“By choosing to appeal rather than applying to set aside, the appellant avoided the filing of evidence on oath and cross-examination as to his non-attendance at trial, and the truth of what happened to the documents that unarguably were served at his foreign address,” the Court stated.

Singh’s legal team, led by attorney Devindra Kissoon, argued that he had not received the court documents, claiming they were mistakenly served at his New York residence and signed for by someone listed as “N Singh,” who he said was not related to him. The Court found this claim to lack credibility, particularly since it was raised for the first time during a second appeal, and without adequate supporting evidence.

The Court concluded that Singh had not been forthright in his conduct and found his procedural approach to be “an abuse of process.” As a result, the stay of execution that was previously granted in December 2024—temporarily halting the sale of Singh’s Queenstown property—was lifted, allowing enforcement of the judgment to proceed.
Legal costs were awarded to Ms. Narine, who was represented by attorney Sanjeev J. Datadin. In a comment following the ruling, Datadin stated that the decision affirmed the importance of procedural fairness in civil litigation.

The ruling brings closure to a legal battle that began in November 2020 when Narine filed a Fixed Date Application in the High Court for repayment of the US $300,000. With the CCJ’s dismissal of Singh’s appeal, the judgement stands as final, and the long-delayed property sale may now proceed.

In an invited comment to this publication, Ms Ann Narine stated that “it’s been a grinding battle, but in the end I prevailed. The CCJ ruled in my favour! These past years tested my resolve to see justice done. There were times when I felt drained and exhausted, but I never gave up. I wish to extend a special note of gratitude to Sanjeev Datadin and his entire legal team for their tireless legal work. Also, sending a big Thank you, to everyone who gave moral support throughout this ordeal.”