CCJ enforces former couple’s agreement

CCJ rules agreement between former couple is binding

The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled that an agreement reached by a Guyanese couple after their marriage ended in 1998 is binding.

The CCJ, Guyana’s highest court, noted that the “without prejudice’ agreement, made on September 12, 2007, between Rosemarie Ramdehol and Haimwant Ramdehol, was clear, had been agreed upon, and was therefore binding.

Business partners

The court noted that before their marriage ended in 1998, the Ramdehols were partners in a successful auto sales business and in 2007, they agreed to negotiate a division of their matrimonial and business assets.

The man submitted that this agreement was made with the ‘without prejudice’ letter, which stated that his former wife would pay him the sum of US$262,500 in exchange for transferring his share of the jointly-owned assets to her.

Ramdehol said that the transfer was made but he was not paid the agreed sum and that the only payments he had received from his ex-wife were repayments of a loan, as well as the proceeds of the sale of a car which he had asked her to sell.

Agreement renegotiated

Mrs. Ramdehol submitted that their agreement was renegotiated after September 2007, however, she could not provide correspondence between their attorneys to substantiate this new agreement.

During the trial,  Mr. Ramdehol also submitted that there could have been no agreement in September 2007 as the correspondence was ‘without prejudice’ and no formal agreement had been drawn up and signed by the parties.

Terms of contract remain

But in its ruling, the CCJ noted that “the terms of the contract were sufficiently certain.

The Court also confirmed the funds received by Mr. Ramdehol were repayments of a loan and from the sale of a vehicle.

The Court ordered Mrs. Ramdehol to pay US$262,500, in settlement of the property division to her former husband, adding that the sum is subject to deduction of monies already paid, if any, in fulfilment of the lower court’s order from June 2012.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here