Cepep contractor appeals judge’s stay of lawsuitA former Community-based Environmental Protection and Enhancement Programme Company (Cepep) contractor has appealed a decision of a judge to stay its lawsuit over the recent termination of it and over 300 other contractors.
Guardian Media understands that lawyers for Eastman Enterprise filed its procedural appeal earlier this morning.
The company is seeking to overturn the preliminary ruling delivered by Justice Margaret Mohammed late last week.
Justice Mohammed stayed the case and referred a contentious issue over the three-year renewals of the contractors days before the general election on April 28 to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
In the appeal, the company is contending that Justice Mohammed was wrong to have made the decision based on the evidence before her and should have instead considered its application for an injunction staying the terminations and blocking the appointment of replacement contractors.
Eastman filed the lawsuit after the contracts were terminated by the United National Congress (UNC)-led coalition government in late June.
Eastman contended that Cepep acted unlawfully as it (Cepep) was required to immediately pay for one month service as it sought to terminate, based on Clause 15 of the contract, without giving notice.
The clause allows Cepep to terminate by giving 30 days notice or making a payment in lieu of notice, if the company fails to meet its contractual obligations or performance assessments conducted by Cepep officials.
It alleged that while it was promised that the payment would be processed and dispensed when Cepep notified the company of the termination, the payment should have been made together with the termination letter.
It is also contending that the clause is unfair and in breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1985 as it gave Cepep too wide of a discretion to terminate.
Responding to the lawsuit, Cepep, through its lawyers led by Anand Ramlogan, SC, of Freedom Law Chambers, raised the issue of the lack of Cabinet approval for the extensions.
It also filed an application for the case to be struck out on the basis that the company had alternative dispute mechanisms available to it.
Cepep put forward an affidavit from ongoing Cepep chief executive Keith Eddy, who claimed that former chairman Joel Edwards gave assurances to him and the company’s board that Cabinet had approved the renewals before they approved such.
Edwards provided an affidavit in response, on Eastman’s behalf, in which he claimed he never gave such assurances and sought to correct a board note over the renewals that indicated that it was being done with the blessing of the then-Cabinet.
He claimed that the extensions were done based on a Cabinet minute from 2017, which he claimed gave the State company the autonomy to decide on such without Cabinet input.
Eddy then filed another affidavit challenging Edwards’ claims.
Eddy provided a transcript of Whatsapp messages between him and Eddy to buttress his original claim.
He further contended that before Edwards gave the alleged assurance, he (Eddy) was personally pressured by former rural development and local government minister Faris Al-Rawi into facilitating the renewals of the contracts.
Cepep has also threatened Edwards with legal action over his role in facilitating the renewals.
Cepep suggested that through the proposed lawsuit, it would be seeking an order against him to indemnify it against any losses it may sustain in relation to the extended contracts and their subsequent terminations.
It has also called on the other nine members of the board to clear the air on the authority they were acting under when deciding on the extensions.
Cepep has claimed that similar legal action may be taken against them based on their responses.
https://www.cnc3.co.tt/cepep-contractor ... f-lawsuit/
