Wayne Lum Young (Appellant) v Sheila Badaloo-Maharaj (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0060

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

WAYNE LUM YOUNG

Respondent(s)

SHEILA BADALOO - MAHARAJ

Issue

Did the deed of conveyance validly convey the land to the appellant?

Facts

The appellant, Wayne Lum Young, claims that a portion of land on the island of Trinidad was lawfully conveyed to him by a deed of conveyance dated 15th October 2012. He argues that the deed of conveyance was signed by Ronald Sinanan-Maharaj, the respondent’s husband and attorney of fact on her behalf. The respondent, Sheila Badaloo-Maharaj, alleges that the deed is a forgery. Mr Maharaj denies signing the deed, and the respondent submits that no deed was executed by any parties and that no consideration was ever paid to her. The respondent brought a claim in the High Court for the deed of conveyance to be set aside and to restrain the appellant from entering the land or from dealing with the land. The judge found in favour of the respondent and granted the orders she sought. This was on the basis that that the power of attorney granted by the respondent to Mr Maharaj did not authorise him to dispose of the entirety of the respondent’s estate. Instead, it only authorised him to dispose of the part of her estate that had previously been owned by her mother. The respondent and her mother had previously held the land as tenants in common. When her mother passed away intestate, her share passed to the respondent. The respondent then granted a power of attorney to Mr Maharaj to dispose of her mother’s share only. As such, Mr Maharaj did not have authority to transfer the whole lands in the deed of conveyance, and the respondent had not signed the deed to transfer her half. The judge also noted that the appellant’s attorney, Mr Diaz, who had prepared and registered the deed, did not hold a practising certificate at the time and was accordingly not qualified to register the deed. The judge also found that Mr Diaz knew that Mr Maharaj was not authorised to convey the whole lands, but he registered it in any event. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

10 July 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top