This column provided by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is aimed at publishing summaries of all CCJ decisions in an effort to educate the public about the activities of the Court. The summaries are written by law students from across the Caribbean, providing them with an avenue to hone and develop their writing skills. The CCJ Corner is expected to play a key role in facilitating the achievement of the Court’s mandate to deepen the regional integration process, develop Caribbean jurisprudence and ensure respect for the rule of law throughout the Caribbean.
By Shara Reid, Norman Manley Law School
After initiating no less than six proceedings in a range of different courts, Delroy Garraway’s claim was brought to a final rest in the Caribbean Court of Justice. In Garraway v Williams  CCJ 12 (AJ), after dismissing Mr. Garraway’s appeal, the CCJ ordered him to give up possession of certain disputed property within two months to Alvin Rambarran, the new owner of the property.
Garraway had taken the owners of a piece of land to the High Court of Guyana in order to force them to sell the land to him. He failed on that occasion. He appealed to the Court of Appeal and he was again unsuccessful. He subsequently brought the same matter to the Land Court, failed, then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal and failed again. He appealed to the CCJ which had to decide whether, on Garraway’s second trip, the Court of Appeal, was correct in finding that his claim in the Land Court was barred based on the legal doctrine of res judicata.
The judges looked at doctrine of res judicata and noted that its purpose was to prevent continued litigation between the same parties about the same matter. The doctrine serves to bar “the same parties from litigating on the same claim or any other claim arising from the same transaction or subject-matter that was or could have been raised in the first suit”. Garraway’s case fitted squarely within the scope of this doctrine.
Consequently, since, on Garraway’s first trip, the Court of Appeal addressed his complaint concerning possession of the piece of land the doctrine of res judicata applied. He would not be allowed to re-litigate the same matter with the hope of securing his desired result. In fact, the Court also found Mr. Garraway’s unfounded persistence to be an abuse of the court’s process. He failed once again.
This summary is intended to assist the Caribbean public in learning more about the work of the CCJ. It is not a formal document of the Court. The judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document and may be found at http://chooseavirb.com/ccj/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/JUDGMENT-FINAL-CV-1-of-2011.pdf