Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A High Court Judge has resolved an inheritance dispute related to a will prepared by Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles.
Delivering a judgment on Thursday, High Court Judge Joan Charles upheld the will and its contents after scrutinising the steps taken by Beckles when preparing the legal document in 2001.
Parbatee Carrera filed the case after her seven siblings sought letters of administration for the estate of their father, Mano Sukram, following his death in November 2003.
She provided the will and claimed that one of her sisters unilaterally commenced renovation works on Sukram’s house, which forms part of the estate, before the legal process was still pending.
The will purported to divide the property held by Sukram at the time of his death between Carrera and his granddaughter.
Carrera’s siblings claimed that the will was fraudulent as they contended that the signature attributed to Sukram was not his.
They questioned their father’s mental capacity to have the will prepared, as they suggested that he was showing signs of dementia. They also claimed that their father would not have been able to read the contents of the legal documents as he was illiterate.
Beckles testified in the case and confirmed the detailed steps she took when Sukram, who she did legal work for previously, gave her instructions regarding the will.
She claimed that she read the document to him and he confirmed that it was in accordance with his wishes.
In determining the case, Justice Charles found that Beckles’ conduct as an attorney in preparing the will could not be faulted.
“I am of the view that the formalities for the execution of a will were adhered to by the deceased,” she said.
Justice Charles found that Beckles was best placed to make an assessment as to his ability to give instructions and understand the contents of the will.
She also noted that there was no evidence to prove that Sukram did not have the mental capacity to have the will prepared.
Justice Charles also noted that Sukram was careful not to include parts of his land, on which he allowed Carrera’s siblings to build houses during his lifetime.
She ruled that they were entitled to keep those portions based on Sukram’s conduct in assuring them that they would be given the spot on which they built.
She found that Carrera’s sister, whose daughter was accounted for under the will, had an equitable interest in the downstairs portion of her father’s house as her father allowed her to construct it after she moved back home in 2003.
As part of her judgment, Justice Charles ordered the siblings to cover their own legal costs for pursuing the case to resolve the family dispute.
Carrera was represented by Marlon Moore, while Farai Hove-Masaisai and Barnelle-Joy La Foucade represented Carrera’s siblings.
