Sherry Ann Dindial and another (Appellants) v Lincoln Dindial and 2 others (Respondents) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0122

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Sherry Ann Dindial

John Dindial

Respondent(s)

Lincoln Dindial

Lynette Ann Ramcharitar

The Administrator General of Trinidad and Tobago

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal: 1) Err in its approach to reviewing findings of fact? 2) Misapply the law on adverse possession? 3) Fail to apply the proper evidential standard and draw the necessary inferences for allegations of fraud? 4) Fail to scrutinise the exercise of discretion? 5) Err in refusing to permit Counsel to withdraw or in refusing an adjournment?

Facts

The claimants, Sherry Ann Dindial (“SD”) and John Dindial (“JD”), and the first defendant, Lincoln Dindial (“LD”), are siblings. The claimants reside together at Lot 228, which they own jointly. Adjacent to their land is Lot 229, which is the subject of these proceedings. Lot 229 was formerly owned by Edwin Elmon Knight who is now deceased. The claimants were granted permission to reside in Lot 229 by Mr Knight before his death. Mr Knight died with no issue. Title to Lot 229 passed to the state and was managed by the third defendant, the Administrator General. The claimants’ position is that they have remained in continuous possession of Lot 229 since before Mr Knight’s death. LD claims that he had been in possession of the land since before Mr Knight’s death. In 2011, the Administrator General sold Lot 229 to LD without advertising the sale or informing the claimants. LD then removed the claimants from Lot 229 and began works on the land. The claimants brought a claim in the High Court. They contended that LD’s title was procured through fraud and deceit and that the Administrator General acted unlawfully in transferring the land to LD. They also claimed that, by virtue of adverse possession, they had already acquired title to the property when it was sold to LD. They also claimed damages for trespass by LD on Lot 229. The High Court dismissed the claimants’ claim. The judge found that there was no evidence to find fraud and that the Administrator General had been entitled to transfer the land to LD. The claimant’s evidence in support of adverse possession was not found to be credible. The judge therefore found that LD was the true paper title owner of the land. The claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed. The claimants now appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.