Still seeking to secure the over US$2 million owed to it by government for road construction works, Trinidad engineering and construction company Dipcon has filed an application to strike out an appeal by the state against the 2018 order that compelled it to pay.
Dipcon, through its attorney, Timothy Jonas, is arguing that the state, through its Attorney General Basil Williams, has filed that appeal to the wrong court, the Guyana Court of Appeal, instead of the Full Court.
Dipcon, which was awarded judgment to the tune of US$2,228,400 since 2015, is contending that the order, which was granted by Chief Justice Roxane George, was interlocutory in nature, having been made from like applications after a final order had been made. As a result, it is of the view that any appeal from such interlocutory orders would have to be determined by the Full Court and that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear such an application.
On this point, Dipcon is contending in its notice of motion that the state’s application is misconceived, should be struck out and should be dismissed with costs forthwith.
The construction company has also said that the Chief Justice’s order is a final order, by which the application before her finally determined the rights of the parties raised, thus ending the proceedings.
The state has, however, still not complied with the Chief Justice’s order, which was made on March 1st, 2018.
As a result, on May 8th, 2018, Dipcon requested that the judge set a timeframe by which the money should have been paid. That date subsequently set was on or before January 15th, 2019.
The state on May 29th, 2018 had then applied, by way of an interlocutory notice of application, to have the Chief Justice’s order of mandamus varied. This was, however, not granted.
Though a court in late June had ordered Finance Minister Winston Jordan to pay over the owed amount no later than Monday or face 21 days in jail, Dipcon has not received any money.
And while Jordan was liable to be held in criminal contempt for non-payment, President David Granger on July 8th, invoking his power under Article 188(1) (b) of the Constitution, granted Jordan, both in his personal capacity and in his capacity as minister, “respite of the execution of the punishment until all appeals and remedies available to him and the state have been exhausted.”
Article 188 (1) (b) of the constitution says that the president may “grant to any person a respite, either indefinite or for a specified period, of the execution of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence.”
Jonas has indicated to this newspaper that plans are afoot to legally challenge the respite.
On June 25th, Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry found Jordan to be in contempt in his personal capacity for not honouring the judgment of Justice Rishi Persaud, made four years ago, that Dipcon be paid the money owed by government.
Against this background, she ordered that Jordan be imprisoned for 21 days if no payment was made by July 8th, having found that he had both the actus reus and mens rea for contempt of the court orders, which she said could be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Jordan had applied for a stay of Justice Sewnarine-Beharry’s ruling, but this was denied in the Full Court by Justices Diana Insanally and Simone Morris-Ramlall, who declared that his application had no merit.
