Dazel Taylor (Respondent) v Rodney Surajbally and 2 others (Appellants) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0078

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

RODNEY SURAJBALLY

Russell SURAJBALLY

Rickey SURAJBALLY

Respondent(s)

DAZEL E. TAYLOR

Issue

Was the Court of Appeal wrong to admit fresh evidence and interfere with the trial judge’s findings of fact?

Facts

The Respondent alleges that she purchased lands in Carnbee, Tobago in February 2000, pursuant to a registered deed of conveyance that recorded “Dazel E. Taylor” as the purchaser. In 2017, the Respondent was made aware that the lands had purportedly been sold to the Appellants in 2014. The Respondent brought proceedings against the Appellants, alleging that the deed registering the 2014 conveyance was fraudulent, the signature appearing on the deed was not hers, and that she had not received the stated consideration of $750,000. The Appellants denied all allegations of fraud, claiming that their attorney had conducted relevant due diligence and title verifications, consideration was paid to the vendor, and an individual named Dazel Taylor had personally executed the conveyance in their favour. The trial judge dismissed the claim, holding that that the Respondent had not adduced sufficient evidence to prove that she was the purchaser of the disputed lands in 2000, and that she had failed to prove her allegation of fraud in connection with the 2014 conveyance to the Appellants. The Respondent appealed, and her application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal was subsequently granted by the Justice of Appeal. On 24 February 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case for a retrial, finding that the trial judge failed to give certain evidence proper weight and was plainly wrong in not recognising the importance of the identity of the person who executed the 2014 conveyance. On 13 July 2026, the Court of Appeal granted the Appellants final leave to appeal to the JCPC.

Date of issue

25 August 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top