Gail Alexander
Senior Political Reporter
Contractors who yesterday lost their appeal to strike out the Estate Management Business Development Company Limited’s (EMBD) case against them–and the parties in the related action including UNC deputy leader Roodal Moonilal–will now have to file defences and proceed to trial, says Attorney General Reginald Armour.
Former UNC housing minister Moonilal said he was anxiously awaiting his day in court as the cases are “politically motivated”.
Both spoke following yesterday’s Court of Appeal judgment. This involved contractors TN Ramnauth and Company Limited, Kall Co Limited, and Mootilal Ramhit and Sons Contracting Limited versus EMBD.
Armour said, “The contractors in these matters and the parties in the related action including Mr Roodal Moonilal (the first defendant in CV 2017-04214), now, more than six years after EMBD filed its pleadings, will have to file their defences and proceed to trial,”
Amour noted that in a unanimous 38-page judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the contractors’ appeal against the August 6, 2020, decision of Justice James Aboud (as he then was).
The contractors had sought to overturn Aboud’s dismissal in the High Court of their applications to strike out EMBD’s case or to compel EMBD to provide further particulars of its pleading.
Armour added, “Had they succeeded they would not have been required to give evidence in the High Court to defend themselves against EMBD’s claims, which they now must do.
“The case has been ordered to continue to trial in the High Court and the contractors and their ‘controlling minds’ (those deemed as having significant influence over them) will now take the witness stand.”
Armour commended the “long hard battle fought by EMBD management under the chairmanship of Ronnie Mohammed” and the work of the company’s legal team.
Respective defences have to be filed on or before March 20.
Armour said the contractors had tried to argue in the Court of Appeal that EMBD’s case as pleaded and filed in 2017 was deficiently pleaded and did not contain sufficient detail to permit them to know the case they had to answer.
He noted that EMBD’s case against the contractors, “... Is that they engaged in acts of unlawful means conspiracy, dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt, based on allegations of bid-rigging and corruption in the tender, award and administration of 12 contracts entered into in the period May to August 2015.
“In delivering the court’s judgment, Mr Justice of Appeal Rajkumar had regard to, among other things, EMBD’s pleading of text and email exchanges among an official of EMBD and some of the parties, and EMBD’s analysis of the correlation and oddities in the bids submitted by the contractors.”
“The Court of Appeal held that, ‘There can be no doubt that any of the appellants could be unaware as to what is being claimed against them and the basis thereof, or would be unable to plead thereto.’ Further, that ‘there is no possible argument that the facts pleaded here were equivocal or consistent with something other than dishonesty because they point distinctly in this case to dishonesty,’” Armour noted.
On the question of whether insufficient primary facts had been pleaded by EMBD, Armour said the Court of Appeal held that sufficient primary facts had been pleaded to permit the inference if proven at trial, that:
(a) there was a cartel arrangement among the appellants;
(b) that the cartel arrangements, including the selection of the contractors to tender, and the rigging of their bids, were the product of an agreement and conspiracy among them, deliberately embarked upon, with full knowledge and participation of each with the intention to benefit themselves at the expense of EMBD;
(c) the actions and activities of the appellants as identified were only compatible with an inference that they were the product of a controlling mind and will, in each of the corporate appellants;
(d) there was an intention to cause EMBD actual pecuniary loss.
Moonilal: These are politically motivated cases
UNC deputy leader Moonilal, who had featured in a related (2017) action as first defendant to EMBD’s claim, was not a participant in the 2020 matter on which yesterday’s judgment was given.
Commenting on the judgment, Moonilal said, “As you know, I wasn’t a participant in these proceedings. I await the next step by those who took the action. I anxiously await my day in court since these are civil politically motivated cases launched by the PNM and not the Director of Public Prosecutions.
“Rowley has spent in excess of $100m on these matters and he will have to account ultimately. I maintain that the legal fees in civil matters must be paid, not from the taxpayer, but from the pension and gratuity of Rowley, Young and others. I am willing to advise on the change of law so that political persecution is deemed an unlawful act against the State.”