CCJ dismisses application to appeal Belize fraud case involving late US Christian missionary
PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, (CMC) – The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has dismissed an application for special leave to appeal against a judgment of misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance of property in Belize.
The CCJ, Belize highest court, also refused the application to stay the execution of that judgment.
The Court was told that Thomas Pound, now deceased, was a real estate broker in the United States and a Christian missionary. He became acquainted with George Dueck, who is the owner of the 120-acre parcel of land situated at Serango Bight, Stann Creek District, Belize. Dueck had engaged Pound to assist with developing the land for tourism purposes and, relying on Pound’s advice that transfer was necessary to convince potential buyers in the United States.
Dueck transferred his property to Pound, who then conveyed properties to a company he incorporated in Belize, namely Kingdom First Ministries International (KFMI).
On 31 January 2014, the High Court of Belize found Pound liable for misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance and on 18 April 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld that finding but reduced the amount payable in damages to Dueck.
The applicants, Kyle and Darin Pound, representing the late 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 CCJ’s 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.
But the CCJ noted that 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.
It said that the applicants then applied to the CCJ for special leave within 21 days of that “refusal” of the Court of Appeal.
The CCJ said it 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.
-30-
