– cites fraudulent saleThe Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Friday dismissed a Guyana land appeal in the matter of Chee Yiu Kwang and another vs Tsui Yokkei on the basis of a fraudulent sale and transfer of a Bartica, Region Seven (Cuyuni-Mazaruni) property.In dismissing the appeal, the CCJ agreed with, and upheld the decision of the High Court and Court of Appeal of Guyana in the matter.The dispute arose out of successive sales of a property at Bartica, which had been originally owned by Chee Yui Kwang (Kwang) and occupied by Tsui Yokkei (Cheekee).Kwang orally agreed to sell the property to Cheekee, who began making payments in this regard. Kwang subsequently sold and transferred ownership of the Bartica property to Millicent Murray. Cheekee commenced an action in the High Court of Guyana on the basis that the transaction between Kwang and Millicent was fraudulent.Acting Chief Justice Ian Chang ruled in favour of Cheekee, holding that the actions of Kwang and Murray amounted to fraud under section 22(1) of the Deeds Registry Act (the Act)1. Kwang was ordered to transfer ownership of the property to Cheekee upon receipt of the full balance due on the property.Both Kwang and Millicent appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the ruling of Justice Chang.In bringing the matter to the CCJ, Kwang sought to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Guyana.The CCJ held that the circumstances of the subsequent sale of the Bartica property to Murray clearly fell within section 22(1).The fact that Kwang sold the property to Murray and transferred ownership to her when she was fully aware of Kwang’s agreement of sale with Cheekee made Murray a participant in the breach of the agreement and privy to the fraud committed by Kwang.The CCJ therefore dismissed the appeal and ordered that the transport (transfer of ownership) of the disputed property be passed to Cheekee. The court was presided over by Justice Nelson along with Justices Saunders,Hayton and Rajnauth-Lee. Rajendra N Poonai, Devindra Kissoon and Naresh Poonai appeared on behalf of the Appellants and Mohabir Anil Nandlall and Manoj Narayan appeared on behalf of the respondent.