06/10/2026
Your estate should carry forward your legacy, not your family’s disagreements.
Brothers' property war prompts High Court warning as judge preserves peace at family home
Seepersad says inherited property should be a family legacy, not a battlefield, as injunction continues
A bitter dispute between two brothers over access to their family home has prompted a strong warning from the High Court about the growing number of family-property battles reaching the courts.
In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, September 29, Justice Frank Seepersad continued an interim injunction regulating the conduct of brothers Shaheed Ali and Nafeez Ali at their home at Ackbar Trace, Charlieville, Chaguanas.
The dispute involved allegations of locked doors, restricted access to common areas, concerns about personal safety and the respondent's desire to maintain a private area where he could pray.
But while the judge continued the injunction, he made clear that the court was not deciding which brother was telling the truth about the disputed allegations.
The case centres on a May 2026 injunction which required Nafeez to remove padlocks, chains, barriers and other obstructions from doors and common areas of the property and prevented him from reinstating them.
The court heard that the brothers had historically occupied different portions of the two-storey home while sharing common areas, including the upstairs hall, television room, downstairs bathroom and toilet facilities, kitchen, laundry area, garage and yard.
Nafeez subsequently placed locks on the main entrance to the upstairs portion, the rear door and the door of a minor child's bedroom.
He maintained that he did so because of concerns about his safety, alleged interference with his access to the kitchen and bathroom, and because he wanted to preserve a clean and undisturbed area in which he could pray.
His allegations included claims that Shaheed, a licensed fi***rm holder, had threatened him and brandished a fi***rm.
Shaheed disputed the allegations and maintained that the locks interfered with his family's historical access to common areas of the home.
Justice Seepersad stressed that the allegations concerning the fi***rm could not be resolved on affidavit evidence alone.
The judge noted that the parties had presented conflicting accounts and that the evidence had not yet been tested by cross-examination.
He therefore found that there was a serious issue to be tried.
The court also considered the potential consequences of restricted access to the home, particularly given the presence of a minor child and the possibility of an emergency requiring occupants to leave the premises quickly.
Justice Seepersad ultimately found that the greater risk of injustice would arise if the injunction were refused.
He said the appropriate course was to preserve the arrangement that existed before the dispute escalated, rather than allow one occupant to unilaterally restrict access to areas that had historically been shared.
The judge also addressed Nafeez's concerns about having a private place to pray.
He said that if those concerns were well-founded, prayers could be performed in a bedroom or another unobstructed area of the home, noting that the evidence did not establish that a specific room had to be secured for that purpose.
However, Justice Seepersad gave particular attention to the fi***rm allegation.
He stated that the privilege of possessing a fi***rm carries a corresponding responsibility and that a lawfully possessed weapon should never become an instrument of intimidation.
The judge warned that if it is established at trial that Shaheed used his fi***rm to threaten or intimidate Nafeez, the court would not hesitate to forward the case file to the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.
That finding did not amount to a determination that the alleged conduct occurred.
The court also examined whether Shaheed had failed to make full disclosure when he originally sought the injunction.
Justice Seepersad found that the existence of five police reports made by Nafeez between September 2023 and April 2026 ought to have been disclosed.
However, the judge concluded that the omission was not sufficiently material to justify discharging the injunction.
The court noted that the police receipts established that reports had been made, but did not establish the truth of the allegations contained in those reports.
The judge also considered the history of the property.
Under a January 2015 agreement involving the executrices of the parties' mother's estate, the brothers, their spouses and children were permitted to live at the property for life, provided there were no misunderstandings or altercations between them.
The agreement also addressed responsibility for maintenance, land rent and utilities, as well as continued access for other family members.
Against that background, Justice Seepersad delivered perhaps the broader message of the ruling.
He said the court is increasingly confronted with disputes involving family property in which siblings and relatives adopt deeply entrenched opposing positions.
“Property which was accumulated through the sacrifice of one generation too often becomes the source of division in the next,” the judge stated.
He added:
“Inherited property should be a legacy which binds a family, not a battlefield which divides it.”
Justice Seepersad said disagreements that might once have been resolved through dialogue, accommodation and compromise can instead harden into hostility and, in some circumstances, violence.
He urged families to develop a stronger culture of early dispute resolution before disagreements escalate into serious conflict.
“Courts can determine legal rights, but they cannot always repair the human relationships damaged along the way,” he said.
The judge encouraged the brothers to seriously consider mediation, noting that it may achieve a reasonable and lasting resolution where litigation cannot repair damaged relationships.
The injunction will remain in place until the substantive trial, but Justice Seepersad varied its terms so that the restrictions apply equally and mutually to both brothers.
The purpose, he said, is to preserve access and peace without prejudging either party's conduct.— Story by I.A.N News (AS)
゚
