CCJ allows Hassan’s appeal in Guyana land dispute and sets aside costs order
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has allowed Janet Hassan’s appeal in a long-running Guyana land dispute, restoring a trial judge’s order that dismissed a claim for possession of land at Plot B, Spring Garden, on the Essequibo Coast.
The CCJ delivered judgment on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, in Janet Hassan v Romanie Gouveia [2026] CCJ 16 (AJ) GY. The case turned on a single question: whether a signed receipt from 1990 amounted to a binding agreement for the sale of land.
In 1990, Eric Sue signed a receipt recording payment of GYD 2,235 by Hassan’s husband, Abdool Hassan, “for the use of” the land. The receipt recorded “Full Payment” and contemplated the construction of houses on the land. It also stated that the land was reserved for road straightening and that “no transport can be issued.” In Guyana, a transport is the legal document that records ownership of land, similar to a title deed.
Gouveia, the executrix of Eric Sue’s estate and the transported owner of the land, brought an action for possession in the High Court. The trial judge dismissed her claim, finding that the receipt was authentic and was evidence of a binding agreement for the sale of the land from Eric Sue to Abdool Hassan.
The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. It treated the receipt as a mere licence, or permission to occupy only, and ordered Hassan to give up possession on or before December 1, 2025, and to pay costs of GYD 175,000.
The CCJ disagreed. The Court held that the receipt, read objectively and as a whole, evidenced an agreement to sell the land. The factual matrix, the contractual context, and the textual context, taken together, all led to the conclusion that the Court of Appeal had fallen into error in construing the receipt as a mere licence. The Court said the Court of Appeal had placed undue weight on particular words without sufficiently considering the wider factual and contractual contexts in which the receipt was created.
In particular, the CCJ noted that the reservation for straightening of the Essequibo Road, and the undisputed fact that Eric Sue was not the transported owner, provided a compelling explanation as to why no transport could be issued.
The Court therefore allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge’s order dismissing Gouveia’s claim for possession.
The CCJ also dealt with a separate costs order. When the Court of Appeal granted Hassan permission to appeal to the CCJ, it refused to grant a stay of the possession order, and it awarded costs of GYD 300,000 against Hassan. The CCJ reversed that award, observing that the Court of Appeal had given no reasons for an award exceeding the costs of the main appeal, although the application was routine and partly successful. The Court further noted that the award appeared excessive and disproportionate, stressing that arbitrary or significantly disproportionate costs orders could undermine access to justice and procedural fairness.
Gouveia was ordered to repay the GYD 300,000 by December 3, 2026, and to pay Hassan’s standard costs before the CCJ as well as her costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The matter was heard by Justices Rajnauth-Lee, Jamadar, Ononaiwu, Eboe-Osuji, and Bulkan.
About The Author
