High Court dismisses Cepep’s bid to strike out contractor’s claim

Justice Robin Mohammed. -

A HIGH COURT JUDGE has dismissed an application by Cepep Company Ltd seeking summary judgment or to strike out a breach-of-contract claim brought by a contractor, ruling that the dispute raises triable issues suitable for a full trial.

Justice Robin Mohammed held that Tombo and Company Ltd has a realistic prospect of success in its claim arising from the early termination of a three-year services contract.

The decision arose from an amended application filed by Cepep on May 7, 2021, seeking summary judgment or to strike out Tombo’s claim and statement of case.

Tombo filed its original claim on October 30, 2020, alleging that Cepep breached a written contract entered into on November 1, 2019, under which Tombo agreed to provide environmental protection, enhancement, waste removal, and disposal services for a period of three years, ending on November 10, 2022.

The company contended that Cepep unlawfully terminated the agreement by letter dated March 3, 2020, without explanation or prior performance evaluations required under the contract.

In its claim, Tombo sought damages for breach of contract, reinstatement of the agreement, and a declaration that a termination clause allowing notice without cause was unfair and unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Alternatively, the company claimed $1.815 million in alleged lost earnings, along with interest and costs.

In its application, Cepep argued that it was contractually entitled to terminate the agreement and that the Unfair Contract Terms Act did not apply. The state company also maintained that the matter involved contractual interpretation and that Tombo had no realistic prospect of succeeding at trial.

In refusing the application, Mohammed found that Cepep had admitted it did not conduct biannual performance evaluations contemplated by the contract and that there was a genuine dispute over whether key contractual clauses should be read together. He also noted unresolved issues concerning alleged nonpayment for services and the impact of the termination on Tombo’s operations.

“These matters raise triable issues,” the judge said in his ruling, concluding that the claim disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed and was not an abuse of process.

The court dismissed Cepep’s application in its entirety and ordered it to pay Tombo’s costs to be assessed if not agreed. Mohammed also directed that a case management conference be held on February 2, 2026.

Tombo was represented by Jeevan Rampersad and Stephen Boodram, while Christopher George and Anuradha Sitala Dean represented Cepep.