May 21, 2025 – A press statement issued by Hon Sanjeev Datadin, attorney for businesswoman Ann Narine, reported, “The Caribbean Court of Justice yesterday dismissed the appeal of Hardat Singh against the USD 300,000.00 judgment obtained by Ann Narine against him.”
This case is the latest legal encounter between Hardat Singh and Ann Narine. The previous one was back in 2021 when Hardat Singh was arrested in Queens, New York (Guyanese Businessman Hardat Singh Arrested in New York), and arraigned in the Queens Criminal Court on one count of “Agg Harass 2-communicate Threat” and “Released on Recognizance”. The charge stemmed from Singh allegedly stalking his former girlfriend, Ms. Ann Narine, making numerous harassing phone calls and appearing at her home in New York, making multiple threats. He also has charges pending in Guyana from earlier in 2021, where he was detained by local law enforcement for an alleged assault incident involving Ms. Narine.
Press Statement – Sanjeev Datadin:
CCJ dismissed appeal for abuse of process confirms money judgment made in High Court.
The Caribbean Court of Justice yesterday dismissed the appeal of Hardat Singh against the USD 300,000.00 judgment obtained by Ann Narine against him. In a landmark judgment the Caribbean Court of Justice (“the CCJ”) upheld the judgment in favour of Ann Narine made by Chief Justice Roxane George CJ in the High Court in 2021. Ann Narine was represented by a team of lawyers which was lead by prominent Attorney-at-Law Sanjeev Datadin and included Jamela Ali SC, Mohanie Anganoo and Khalif Gobin of Whitworth Chambers. Hardat Singh was represented by Dave Kissoon, N. Viera and A. Dev.
Ann Narine had brought legal proceedings in 2020 to recover USD 300,000.00 owed to her by Hardat Singh since 2018. Her claim was on a written document signed by Singh. Singh had alleged that he was not served with the claim despite the filing confirmation by FedEx of its delivery to him. He failed to appear in the High Court hearing and also failed to file a defence. The Chief Justice granted judgment against him in 2021.
The Court had earlier granted a stay of the execution sale of Singh’s property in Georgetown but that stay has now been lifted and Narine has confirmed that the execution sale of Singh’s property on Lance Gibbs Street, Queenstown, Georgetown will now take place shortly as it was already advertised in the Official Gazette. In addition to the judgment sum of USD 300,000.00, Narine was awarded costs which would amount to USD 45,000.00 and interest on the judgment sum.
The CCJ today dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay of the execution sale of Singh’s property. The decision is a landmark decision which settles the law in no uncertain terms about whether a rehearing or an appeal should be pursued by a litigant who is absent from the trial. The Court was critical of Singh not having appeared in the High Court and yet seeking to file and appeal labelling such an approach would only be acceptable in “unusual” circumstances. The Court said Singh’s appeal was an abuse of process and cannot be allowed.
The CCJ further commented that Singh had filed 16 grounds of appeal, in the Court of Appeal he advanced 12 grounds of appeal and in the CCJ he filed 21 grounds of appeal. None of the grounds found favour with the Court. The Court was critical of Singh’s appeal of the decision instead of applying to the High Court to have the matter reheard in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court was critical of his insistence to file an appeal instead of a rehearing saying it amounted to an avoidance of the obligations and burdens placed upon him by the CPR to explain his absence from the trial of the matter. Datadin in an invited comment said that the debt owed was clear and the Court has now reinforced the clear words of the CPR and established procedures for proceedings in Guyana.
The Court emphasized that justice demands every person before the Court be heard and notified and be allowed to defend the proceedings but Singh in pursuing an appeal mean no defence could now avail him as he had allowed the time and opportunity to pass. The Court said he should not be allowed to avoid an explanation as to what happened to the documents delivered to his address. He never explained this in any Court.
The Court commented critically that Singh chose to pursue a course of action to get through the backdoor that which he could not have obtained through the front door by making an application in accordance with the CPR.
