Judge sets aside judgment against AG

In the continuing million-dollar lawsuit against the Education Facilities Company Ltd (EFCL) by a south-based contractor, attorneys for the Attorney General, representing the State, yesterday succeeded in setting aside a $3 million judgment.

Justice Frank Seepersad found that the AG, who was named as the second defendant, has put forward a viable defence worthy of considering against the default judgment that the contractor, Motilal Ramhit and Sons Contracting Ltd, obtained in July both against EFCL as the first defendant and the AG.

In his ruling yesterday in the San Fernando High Court, Seepersad said, “The court is of the view that the issue as to whether the contract in this case ought to have been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Central Board Act, is one of paramount importance to the citizens of this republic.”

The contractor had sued both parties for the money owed, but though the AG’s office was served with the lawsuit, it did not file an appearance.

Seepersad granted the contractor judgment in default, but the attorneys in the AG’s office filed an application to set aside the judgement and filed affidavits to support their reasons. In a written judgment yesterday, Seepersad agreed that the AG’s arguments had merit in moving the court to set aside the judgment for the sums of $2,699,724.11; $417,801.60; and $359,792.99.

EFCL is named as the first defendant and the judgment stands against the company.

Attorney Prakash Deonarine, representing the contractor, had challenged the AG’s application to set aside. Attorney for the AG, Avaria Niles, contended that the State only found out about the default judgment on September 20. Niles pleaded that it was in the public’s interest that the arguments of the State be considered in an effort to “protect the public purse from being unfairly depleted especially during a period of great economic need.”

In giving his ruling yesterday, Seepersad held that the AG must show a realistic prospect of success in the lawsuit brought by the contractor. He said the relationship between the government and the EFCL should be clarified. It is of paramount importance to the country, he added, whether the contract was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Central Tenders Board Act (CTBA).

Seepersad expressed the view in his judgment that there is a perception that special-interest companies have been used to circumvent the strictures imposed by the act. He said, “Contracting companies should always have clarity with respect to the contractual provisions, including certainty as to the party upon whom ultimate responsibility rests with regard to the payment of sums due under the contract.