Route Maxi Taxi operators want the Government to pay them over $4 million owed to them following a court judgment at the Privy Council over two decades ago.
The ruling came after a group of maxi taxi operators challenged a fee imposed on them by the Public Service Transport Corporation (PTSC) and the Route Two Maxi Taxi Association for accessing City Gate in Port-of-Spain in 2001.
The dispute escalated through multiple rounds of litigation, ultimately reaching the Privy Council, the highest court of appeal, where the maxi taxi operators secured a landmark victory on December 13, 2010.
The court ruled in their favour, effectively overturning the contested fee.
However, the operators are now claiming that the state owes them more than $4 million in compensation, following the court’s decision.
Abraham Cumberbatch, a maxi taxi operator involved in the case, is appealing to the state to honour the court’s judgment. He said over 100 operators were awaiting payments and growing increasingly frustrated with the lack of action.
In his plea, Cumberbatch warned that the operators might be forced to pursue another legal route to secure what they are owed, including the possibility of levying on the state if necessary.
“We have waited long enough, and we are prepared to take further action if we must,” he said, underscoring the determination of the operators to obtain justice after years of legal wrangling.
He added that this long-standing conflict had left many operators struggling to recover the financial losses they incurred due to the unlawful fee.
Brenton Knights, president of the Route 2 Maxi Taxi Association, called on the state to respect the court’s ruling.
He emphasised that the State had a responsibility to honour the judgment and compensate the operators for the millions they were owed.
“The state must uphold the decision of the courts,” Knights stated, echoing the growing frustration of more than 100 operators who have yet to receive their compensation.
With little movement on the issue, Cumberbatch said they are considering further legal avenues to enforce the judgment, including the possibility of levying against the state if necessary.