16 hours ago
6
Senior Reporter
The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision on the future of litigation challenging the mass termination of over 300 Community-based Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme Company (CEPEP) contractors.
Appellate Judges Peter Rajkumar, James Aboud, and Ricky Rahim reserved their judgment after hearing submissions from lawyers for the special purpose-State company and one of the affected contractors, Eastman Enterprises Limited, during a hearing at the Hall of Justice in Port-of-Spain, yesterday.
In the appeal, Eastman is claiming that High Court Judge Margaret Mohammed erred when she stayed its case and referred a contentious aspect of it, dealing with the extension of the contracts, days before the April 28 General Election, to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Roger Gaspard, SC.
Eastman’s lawyer, Larry Lalla, SC, claimed that the judge was wrong to have ruled that the company was required to engage in mediation and arbitration before seeking an injunction stopping the move by the current United National Congress (UNC) Government, led by Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, to terminate the contracts.
While he admitted that the alternative dispute resolution clause found in its contract was valid, Lalla claimed that it was not mandatory.
He also stated that CEPEP was required to give 30 days’ notice or pay his client for a month’s service in lieu of notice.
Lalla also contended that the judge overstepped in referring the issue of the renewals to the DPP’s Office when the evidence before her was at a preliminary stage.
“Under the constitution, the DPP has no power to investigate. He can institute criminal proceedings, but that comes after an investigation,” Lalla said.
Lalla also rejected allegations that the renewals were fraudulent on the basis that such was not expressly approved by the then-Cabinet.
“There is no evidence that Cabinet approval was required,” Lalla said, as he referred to an addendum to the contract which he suggested guaranteed his client a three-year contract extension.
He also noted that allegations made by CEPEP related to alleged assurances made by former CEPEP chairman Joel Edwards over Cabinet giving the green light for the renewals were irrelevant to the case, as such did not involve Eastman.
“There is nothing to implicate Eastman over what was going on in CEPEP,” Lalla said.
Responding to the submissions, CEPEP’s lawyer Anand Ramlogan, SC, claimed that the judge could not be faulted for her handling of the case.
“She was plainly justified and right,” Ramlogan said.
Ramlogan called on the panel to uphold the judge’s findings on the effect of the alternative dispute resolution clause, as he suggested that a reversal may have a significant effect on commercial disputes in T&T.
“The parties intended the alternative dispute resolution clause to be binding and effective,” he said.
Ramlogan also noted that while the company was not paid for a month immediately when it was officially notified of the termination in late June, it subsequently received the payment.
Dealing with the referral by the judge, Ramlogan said it was within her discretion as she was faced with evidence that CEPEP’s former board was misled on Cabinet approval.
“This was an attempt to handcuff CEPEP to existing contractors…This involved public funds to the tune of $1.4 billion,” Ramlogan said.
He said that if the referral eventually led to criminal prosecution, such would be another ground under which to validly terminate the contractors.
“It is fraud and the renewal would be fruit from a poisoned tree,” Ramlogan said.
Ramlogan maintained his call for the judges to consider the evidence of continuing CEPEP chief executive Keith Eddy’s evidence over the renewals even as Justices Rajkumar and Aboud expressed hesitance to consider the evidence in the case during the procedural appeal.
“We have to be careful not to delve too deep at this stage,” Justice Rajkumar said.
Ramlogan also called on the judges to reject Eastman’s suggestion to reassign the case to another judge if they eventually uphold the appeal and reinstate the case.
“There must be justification for such an extraordinary order. There is no basis or justification,” Ramlogan said.
CEPEP is also being represented by Kent Samlal, Jared Jagroo, and Asha Ramlal. Eastman Enterprises is also being represented by St Clair O’Neil and Kareem Marcelle.
English (US) ·