Sheridan Abraham and others (Respondents) v Trinidad and Tobago Mortgage Bank Limited (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0039

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Trinidad and Tobago Mortgage Bank Limited

Respondent(s)

Sheridan Abraham (1st Respondent) and Hazel Abraham (2nd Respondent)

Kenrick Titus Kenny-Arthur Burke (3rd Respondent) and Shanta Yinkha Burke (4th Respondent)

Rowle Jordan (deceased) (5th Respondent), Mark Lyle (6th Respondent) and Jennifer Lyle ( 7th Respondent)

Andy Peruzar (8th Respondent)

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err as a matter of law in overturning the trial judge’s findings of fact on an assessment of the evidence, to find that the original claimants had proved their case of forgery?

Facts

The facts concern a parcel of land in San Juan, Trinidad, of which Sheridan and Hazel Abraham (the “Abrahams”) were registered as owners in January 2011. A registered deed of conveyance dated 15 May 2013 (the “15 May Deed of Conveyance”) purported to transfer title to Andy Peruzar. Further deeds dated 25 October 2013 (the “25 October Deed of Conveyance”) and 15 July 2015 (the “15 July Deed of Conveyance”) purported to transfer title, firstly from Peruzar to Rowle Jordan and Mark and Jennifer Lyles, and subsequently to Kenrick and Shanta Burke. The Appellant and the Burkes also executed a mortgage deed in relation to the land dated 15 July 2015 (the “Deed of Mortgage”). All deeds were registered under section 16 of the Registration of Deeds Act, Chapter 19:06. In September 2020, the Abrahams brought claims in the High Court against the remaining parties to the appeal. They sought to set aside the 15 May, 25 October and 15 July Deeds of Conveyance, and the 15 July 2015 Deed of Mortgage, as void on the basis that the 15 May Deed of Conveyance had been forged by Peruzar. The High Court dismissed the Abrahams’ claims on the basis that they had not discharged the burden of proof to establish forgery. In so doing, the High Court remarked that the Abrahams were credible witnesses, but considered there were procedural failings in their pleaded case, including in relation to the evidence admitted. The Court of Appeal allowed the Abrahams’ appeal and overturned the High Court’s findings of fact, holding that the court had erred in concluding that the forgery of the 15 May Conveyance had not been proven. From an assessment of the evidence the conveyance was void, which in turn unravelled the validity of the subsequent conveyances and the mortgage transaction. It was not sufficient for the purported subsequent purchasers to argue that they were bona fide purchasers without notice. The Abrahams therefore remained the rightful holders of legal title to the land. The Court of Appeal granted the Appellant final leave to appeal its judgment to the JCPC on 23 February 2026.

Date of issue

20 May 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Linked cases

Back to top