JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Monday, May 5, 2025

Cane farmers win $450,000 claim against Govt

by

Derek Achong
2285 days ago
20190131
Attorney Gerald Ramdeen.

Attorney Gerald Ramdeen.

Anisto Alves

Derek Achong

The State has been or­dered to pay more than $450,000 to six sug­ar cane farm­ers, who claimed they were owed mon­ey un­der a com­pen­sa­tion scheme for tran­si­tion­ing out of the in­dus­try.

On Mon­day, three Court of Ap­peal Judges dis­missed the State's ap­peal, in which it was seek­ing to over­turn the de­ci­sion of three High Court judges to re­ject its at­tempts to seek ex­ten­sions for fil­ing its de­fences in three sep­a­rate law­suits brought by the farm­ers.

The de­ci­sion means that De­wantie and Man­zo­ol Mo­hammed would re­ceive $112,448, while Kaloutie and Mathu­ra Bisses­sar would re­ceive $63,476.04. Si­ta Ma­haraj and Manohar Ram­nar­ine would re­ceive $278,301.41.

The three cou­ples were among 2,323 pri­vate cane farm­ers who were promised $130 mil­lion by the for­mer Peo­ple's Part­ner­ship ad­min­is­tra­tion for their loss­es fol­low­ing the clo­sure of Ca­roni (1975) Lim­it­ed.

Be­fore demit­ting of­fice in Sep­tem­ber 2015, the for­mer gov­ern­ment made $27 mil­lion in ini­tial pay­ments.

Af­ter the Peo­ple's Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) came in­to of­fice, the Gov­ern­ment sought to rene­go­ti­ate the deal and re­duce the re­main­ing pay­ments to $57.9 mil­lion.

The cou­ples re­ject­ed the pro­pos­al and filed law­suits in March, last year.

State at­tor­neys failed to file de­fences to the claims with­in the stip­u­lat­ed time and filed for ex­ten­sions stat­ing that they need­ed time to re­ceive in­struc­tions from sev­er­al min­istries.

The farm­ers' lawyers Op­po­si­tion Sen­a­tor Ger­ald Ramdeen, Umesh Ma­haraj and Dayadai Har­ri­paul chal­lenged the ap­pli­ca­tions as they claimed that they had no ex­cuse as they had been in dis­cus­sions with the State over the is­sue since 2016.

The ap­pli­ca­tions were even­tu­al­ly re­ject­ed by High Court judges Davin­dra Ram­per­sad, Eleanor Don­ald­son-Hon­ey­well and Ava­son Quin­lan-Williams, paving the way for the cou­ples to ob­tain de­fault judg­ments against the State.

Dur­ing the hear­ing, ear­li­er this week, Ap­pel­late judges Al­lan Men­don­ca, Ju­dith Jones, and Pe­ter Ra­jku­mar ruled that the judges were cor­rect to rule that state at­tor­neys could not jus­ti­fy the ex­ten­sions.

Al­though the three cou­ples suc­ceed­ed in their claim, there are al­so 200 ad­di­tion­al claims from oth­er farm­ers pend­ing in the High Court. Oth­er farm­ers who were af­fect­ed but did not bring law­suits are still able to do so as they are still with­in the four-year statu­to­ry lim­it.

The State was rep­re­sent­ed by Vanes­sa Gopaul and Sa­va­tri Ma­haraj.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored