Court of Appeal judge Justice Nolan Bereaux has dismissed a CEPEP contractors application for an urgent hearing of his appeal.

On August 7, Justice Margaret Mohammed stayed a lawsuit filed by contractor Eastman Enterprises against the CEPEP Company Ltd (CEPEP) and directed that all case documents be forwarded to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for investigation.

She ruled that the claim filed against CEPEP was premature and dismissed an application for an injunction to compel CEPEP to rehire contractors who had been terminated.

The contractor appealed the decision and applied to the Court of Appeal for an urgent hearing. That application was denied, as Justice Bereaux dismissed the request and ordered Eastman to pay CEPEPs legal costs.

CEPEP issued a media release yesterday, noting that in dismissing the application, Justice Bereaux stated the case lacked sufficient oomph.

The release said that Eastman Enterprises is seeking to overturn the order, referring the matter to the DPP for cri�minal investigation, citing hardship experi�enced by dismissed work�ers in its appeal.

According to the release, Eastmans attorney, Senior Counsel Larry Lalla, told the court that CEPEP workers came from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum.

He read from the affidavit of Cindy-Ann Purcell, of Beetham Gardens, Laventille, which stated that she is a mother of four and separated from the father of her children. Her affidavit detailed that she lives in a two-bedroom home with an outside bathroom.

She said her eldest son, aged 25, suffers from ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and is recovering from a broken foot. Her second adult son, Marcus, is on a full track and field scholarship at Emmanuel University in Georgia, USA. Her third son, aged 19, is working towards a scho�larship with the Mem�phis Pio�neers Athletics Club. She has a ten-year-old daughter.

Where is the father? 

The release said that Lalla emphasised the hard�ship faced by the workers as grounds for urgency.

However, CEPEPs attor�ney, former attor�ney general Anand Ram��logan, countered this argument.

Ramlogan contended that Eastman Enterpri�ses had received over $9 million from CEPEP and had previously earned revenue from other entities such as EFCL (Education Facilities Company Ltd).

He questioned why the contractor was solely reliant on CEPEP and not seeking to assist its wor�kers by securing work from other companies.

He also claimed that more than 7,000 workers lost their jobs in 2017 after contracts were terminated under the then PNM (Peoples National Movement) government and that they too had suffered hardship.

Ramlogan told the court that for every CEPEP worker who had held a job over the past ten years, thousands of others from similar socio-�economic backgrounds remained unemployed and had to find alternative means of survival.

Further, he argued that CEPEP was intended as a business incubator model, not a means of permanent employment, and allowing contractors to treat it as such would deprive others of opportunities under the programme.

While stating that CEPEP was sympathetic, Ramlogan questioned why the father of Purcells children was not providing maintenance or financial support.

He added that even those in employment were experiencing hardship, noting the working class poor live from pay cheque to pay cheque, and their circumstances were no different.

No oomph 

The release said that, in delivering his ruling, Justice Bereaux was critical of the affidavit evidence provided by attorney Kareem Marcelle, stating there was nothing in the affidavit that demonstrated any cogency or urgency warranting the matter being treated as fit for urgent hearing.

It added, The Court said even if it did take the plight of the workers into account, there were no cogent circumstan�ces that would allow the appeal to be heard over, above and in priority to other matters before the Court in which other persons have been patiently waiting in the queue.

He stated that very cogent facts and circumstances were needed, and there was no proper basis in Eastmans evidence to hear the matter urgently. According to him, the evidence lacked the necessary oomph to satisfy the legal requirements.

Eastman Enterpri�ses was represented by Lalla, Marcelle and St Clair ONeil.

Ramlogan appeared for the CEPEP Company Ltd, along with Kent Samlal, Jared Jagroo and Asha Ramlal.

The substantive appeal will be heard as determined by the court.