Kevin Kanhai v Dhanraji Persad and Randy Persad

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mohammed, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 285
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2021-04403
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

Kevin Kanhai

and

Dhanraji Persad and Randy Persad

Mohammed, J.

Suit No.: CV2021-04403

High Court

Appearances:

Mr. Gerard Raphael and Ms. Lana Chunilal, Attorneys at Law for the Claimant.

Mr. Vashisht Seepersad, Attorneys at Law for the Defendants.

RULING

Mohammed, J.

1 On 20 February 2025, Ms. Shannon Mc Donald Persad (“Ms. Persad”), the wife of the Second Defendant (“Randy”) and daughter-in-law of the First Defendant (“Dhanraji”) was appointed to represent their respective estates for the purpose of continuing the instant action. Ms. Persad resides in the house of Dhanraji and Randy, which is situated on a parcel of land situated at Limehead Road Agostini Settlement Chase Village (“the subject lands”). On 25 February 2025, Ms. Persad applied for permission to rely on the witness statements of Dhanraj and Randy, both filed on 18 May 2023 as evidence-in-chief at the trial of this matter. The application was made under Parts 29.9 and 29.11 CPR. Alternatively, the application also sought permission to rely on the said witness statements as Hearsay evidence at the trial pursuant to Rule 30.2, 30.3, 30.6 and 30.8 CPR and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

2 The affidavit in support was filed by Mr. Vashist Seepersad, Attorney at law for Ms. Persad (“the Seepersad Affidavit”) which stated that the reasons for seeking the orders are: Dhanraji passed away on 13 November 2024; Randy died on 7 December 2024; Ms. Persad was also looking after her ailing father who passed away on 5 January 2025; Ms. Persad was appointed to represent the estates of Dharaji and Randy on 20 January 2025; the evidence in the said witness statements contain information which is material in the determination of the issues at trial; and the estates of the Defendants would be prejudiced as the said witness statements are the only evidence filed on their behalf.

3 On 5 May 2025, a Hearsay Notice was filed on behalf of the estates of the Defendants, which stated that the makers of the statements would not be called at trial on the basis that they were dead, pursuant to rule 30.6 of the CPR. Prior to this, on 19 May 2023, the Defendants filed a hearsay notice to admit the exhibits in the witness statements of Dhanraji and Randy namely: (i) birth certificates, death certificates and marriage certificates; (ii) photographs taken by the 2nd defendant; (iii) receipts from hardware; (iv) WASA receipts and statements; (v) TTEC correspondence; (vi) Land and Building tax receipts; (vii) correspondence from the Ministry of Housing and urban Development; (viii) correspondence with member of Parliament for the area; (ix) photogrammetric reports and survey plans.

4 The Claimant opposed the orders being granted on the basis that the Hearsay Notice filed on 5 May 2025 is misconceived as the witness statements cannot be admitted as hearsay evidence pursuant to Part 30 of the CPR; in order to admit the witness statements under Part 29 of the CPR, notice was required at least 21 days before the trial; the Defendants application was filed on the same day of trial, that is, 25 February 2025; and the explanation for the delay is not good.

5 The claim concerns the use of a right of way (“the right of way”) located on the western portion of the subject lands. The Claimant, Dhanraji and Randy resided on the subject lands in separate homes. The Claimant and Dhanraji are cousins and claim their respective titles to their portions of the subject lands through their parents, Surujlal Kanhai (“Surujlal”) and Dularie Persad (“Dularie”), respectively, who were siblings. Their parents inherited the subject lands from their deceased father, Ramcharan Kanhai (“Ramcharan”). Randy is the son of Dhanraji.

6 The Claimant contends that he inherited the entirety of the subject lands as, after the death of Ramcharan, the subject lands passed to his wife, Samdai Chatoo and children, Dularie and Surujlal and that the Commissioner of State Lands thereafter recognised Surujlal as the sole surviving tenant of the subject lands. Surujlal then invited his sister Dularie back to the subject lands in the 1970s and constructed a small wooden dwelling house for her. He contends that it was always agreed that the right of way would be used by everyone and that the Defendants have failed to abide by the oral arrangement between Surujlal and Dularie with respect to the allocation and use of the subject lands, by trespassing onto the Claimant's portion and blocking the right of way which the Claimant uses to access his home. The orders which the Claimant seeks in his claim are: (i) a declaration of entitlement to the...