Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams S.C., has filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal requesting leave to appeal the decision of Justice Rishi Persaud at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in the case of Attorney General of Guyana and Dipcon Engineering.Justice Persaud ruled that Dipcon recover from the Government of Guyana the sum of US$665,032.17 as monies due, to the engineering company for road building and construction works undertaken for and at the request of the Government, along with the sum of US$1,563,368.50 for increased costs incurred by Dipcon at the request of the Government in the course of undertaking the aforementioned work.
The engineering company also requested a six per cent per annum interest from February 10, 2009 to October 21, 2015 and thereafter at a rate of four per cent per annum until fully paid.
It was also ordered that the Government pays Dipcon costs to the tune of $1,200,000 along with a stay of execution for six weeks from the date of the ruling.
Dipcon took the Government to court in 2009, while the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) was in Government. However, judgment was handed down in October 2015.
Meanwhile, according to the Notice of Appeal, the Attorney General is also seeking a stay of execution of the judgment of Justice Persaud pending the determination of the Appeal and any other order that the Court may deem necessary, including costs.
In his affidavit in support of the application for leave to appeal to the CCJ, Williams said that he was unaware that the previous Attorney General had laid over a court order for payment of $400M with the Minister of Finance in January 2016.
Williams said too that he was not furnished with details regarding the judgment, the name of the Attorney-at-Law or the parties to the litigation that resulted in the Court Order.
Additionally, it was contended that it was during the February 2016 Budget debates that he Williams was informed by the Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo that there was a large judgment awarded against the State since the APNU+AFC coalition Government took office.
The Attorney General said that after receiving the information, he inquired within his Chambers and discovered that the matter was being handled by a private counsel, Roysdale Forde.
Forde was given the case by former Attorney General Anil Nandlall.
NO APPEAL FILED
The affidavit stated that Forde provided Williams with a copy of the proceedings in March 2016 and it was then that it was discovered that no appeal had been filed on behalf of the Attorney General.
“As a consequence, a motion with affidavit in support of motion was filed on behalf of the Hon. Attorney General dated 12th day of May, 2016, seeking an extension of time within which to file a Notice of Appeal out of time against the judgment of the Honourable Mister Rishi Persaud of the High Court of the Supreme Court made on the 21st Day of October, 2015 in Action No. 88-CD of 2009.”
Dipcon contended that by virtue of a written agreement dated March 5, 2003 and amended inter alia by Memorandum of Understanding dated March 5, 2003, and by an Addendum dated July 15, 2003, that Dipcon would execute specified road construction and infrastructural works for the Government in the Mahaica-Rosignol area and that the Government should pay to Dipcon a lump sum payment of US$20,258,644.22, a reasonable sum to be agreed between the parties to compensate for increases in costs of performing the said works resulting from general inflation conditions during the course of work.
It was also agreed that the work would be rendered by Dipcon over an extended period of time and that the lump sum would be made by monthly installments during the course of the work.
Based on the agreement, Dipcon carried out its functions and invoiced the Government US$20,258,664.22 for the works done.
On January 18, 2017, the full bench of the Court of Appeal ruled that the order sought in the motion was refused. As a result, the Attorney General contends that the application for leave to appeal to the CCJ against the decision is made pursuant to section 6 (a) and 7 (a) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act, Act No.16 of 2004.
“I am also advised… that this application ought to be granted in light of the issues of grave public interest which are set out in the grounds of the proposed appeal… these issues include the economic effect of this judgment on the Cooperative Republic of Guyana and more specifically in relation to the State’s abilities to engage international donor agencies.”
Williams submitted that there were several delays as a result of him not being the Attorney General at the time the matter was in court and the time taken to ascertain the facts of the matter. He said the delays were “unavoidable” in making the application for extension in time.