On 17 December 2024, the Caribbean Court of Justice (‘CCJ’) dismissed an application (CCJ Application No BZ/A/CV2024/001) for special leave to appeal against a judgment of misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance of property in Belize. The CCJ also refused the application to stay the execution of that judgment. The reasons for the Court’s decision were delivered on 17 January 2025.
Mr. Thomas Pound, now deceased, was a real estate broker in the USA and a Christian missionary. He became acquainted with Mr. George Dueck, who is the owner of the 120-acre parcel of land situated at Serango Bight, Stann Creek District, Belize. Mr Dueck had engaged Mr Pound to assist with developing the land for tourism purposes and, relying on Mr Pound’s advice that transfer was necessary to convince potential buyers in the USA, Mr Dueck transferred his property to Mr Pound. Mr. Pound then conveyed properties to a company he incorporated in Belize, Kingdom First Ministries International (“KFMI”).
On 31 January 2014, the High Court of Belize found Mr Pound liable for misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance. On 18 April 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld that finding but reduced the amount payable in damages to Mr. Dueck.
The Applicants, Kyle and Darin Pound, representing the late Mr. Thomas Pound, and KFMI, failed to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal within 42 days of the judgment as required by the Caribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules. Consequently, if the Applicants wished to appeal, their only recourse was to apply to the CCJ for special leave and to seek an extension of time.
Instead of adopting that procedure, the Applicants made a belated application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal which that court was constrained to refuse because it had no power to extend the time. The Applicants then applied to the CCJ for special leave within 21 days of that “refusal” of the Court of Appeal. The CCJ found this procedure amounted to an abuse of process and was sufficient to dismiss the application. Nevertheless, the Court went on to evaluate the intended grounds of appeal and found that they did not have a realistic chance of success. The application was therefore also refused on that basis and the application for a stay of the judgment of the Court of Appeal was dismissed.
The matter was heard by the Honourable Mr Justice Anderson, the Honourable Mr Justice Burgess and the Honourable Mme Justice Ononaiwu. Mr Immanuel Williams represented the Applicants and the Rt Hon Dean Barrow, SC and Ms Agassi Finnegan represented the Respondent.