Junior Fabian Creighton v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mr. Justice Devindra Rampersad
• Judgment Date: 07 February 2023
• Neutral Citation: TT 2023 HC 38
• Docket Number: Claim No.: CV2014-2621, 2623, 2626, 2628 and 2631 Claim No.: CV2015-00671 Claim No: CV2014-2600, 2601, 2604, 2605, 2606 CV2015-3139; CV2016-04495 Claim No.: CV2014-02499, 02502, 02503, 02504, 02505, 02507, 02622, 02624, 02627, 02632, 02633, 02634, 02635, 02636, 02637, 02638, 02639, 02640, 02641, 02642 CV2015-02945, 02946 Claim No.: CV2014-02803, 02804, 02805, 02807, 02809, 02810, 02811 Claim No.: CV2014-02702, 02703, 02704, 02705, 02706, 02707, 02708, 02709, 02710, 02711, 02712, 02713, 02714, 02715, 02716, 02717, 02718, 02719, CV2015-1776
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

Between

Junior Fabian Creighton

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

Between

Cleophas Alexander Orr and Associates Services

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

Between

K&A Holdings Limited

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

Between

Rev's Mechanical & Engineering Services Limited

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

Between

JDR Construction Limited

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

Between

Hypolite General Contractors Co Ltd

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

Between

R & S Boodoo Equipment Rental & Transport Ltd

Claimant

and

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Defendant

Before

The Honourable Mr. Justice Devindra Rampersad

Claim No.: CV2014-2621, 2623, 2626, 2628 and 2631

Claim No.: CV2014-03259, 03261

Claim No.: CV2015-00671

Claim No: CV2014-2600, 2601, 2604, 2605, 2606 CV2015-3139; CV2016-04495

Claim No.: CV2014-02499, 02502, 02503, 02504, 02505, 02507, 02622, 02624, 02627, 02632, 02633, 02634, 02635, 02636, 02637, 02638, 02639, 02640, 02641, 02642 CV2015-02945, 02946

Claim No.: CV2014-02803, 02804, 02805, 02807, 02809, 02810, 02811

Claim No.: CV2014-02702, 02703, 02704, 02705, 02706, 02707, 02708, 02709, 02710, 02711, 02712, 02713, 02714, 02715, 02716, 02717, 02718, 02719, CV2015-1776

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Claimant: Lemuel Murphy

Defendant: Seenath Jairam S.C. leads Jagdeo Singh instructed by Laura Persad and Kadine Matthew

Appearances:

Claimant: Ronald Simon, Augustus Thomas and Kia Baptiste instructed by Lindianne Marshall

Defendant: Seenath Jairam S.C. leads Jagdeo Singh instructed by Nisa Simmons and Adana Hosang

Appearances:

Claimant Ronald Simon, Augustus Thomas and Kia Baptiste instructed by Lindianne Marshall

Defendant: Seenath Jairam S.C. leads Jagdeo Singh instructed by Nisa Simmons and Adana Hosang

Appearances:

Claimant: Ronald Simon, Augustus Thomas and Kia Baptiste instructed by Lindianne Marshall

Defendant: Seenath Jairam S.C. leads Jagdeo Singh instructed by Laura Persad and Kadine Matthew

Appearances:

Claimant: Jai P. Naraine instructed by Dinesh I. Naraine

Defendant: Seenath Jairam S.C. leads Jagdeo Singh instructed by Michelle Benjamin and Lianne Thomas

Appearances:

Claimant: Lemuel Murphy instructed by Makisha Belle

Defendant: Seenath Jairam S.C. leads Jagdeo Singh instructed by Nisa Simmons and Adana Hosang

Appearances:

Claimant: Jai P. Naraine instructed by Dinesh I. Naraine

Defendant: Seenath Jairam S.C. leads Jagdeo Singh instructed by Nisa Simmons and Adana Hosang

Table of Contents

Executive Summary	10
Introduction	12
The Series of Matters	14
Junior Fabian Creighton	15
The Claimant's Evidence	18
Narwaz Karim	18
Ramdial Ramtahal	19
Rawle Felix	20
Danny Persad	22
Dhano Sookoo	23
Myrna Thompson	25
Royce Felix	28
Michael Creighton	29
Joseph John	29
Shelby Faustin	32
Junior Fabien Creighton	32
Cleophas Alexander Orr and Associates Services	37
The Claimant's Evidence	40
Cleophas Orr	40
Leon Young	42
JDR Construction Ltd	43
The Claimant's Evidence	45
Danny Persad	45
Rakesh Boodoo	52
Sookdeo Ramroop	53
R & S Boodoo Equipment Rental & Transport Limited	54
The Claimant's Evidence	56
Mr. Boodoo	56
Nixon Jemmot	62
Navin Orie	63
Hypolite General Contractors Co. Limited	63
The Claimant's Evidence	65
Ecliffe Hypolite	65
Terrance Hypolite	67
Chatelal Reds	70
Romon Marildo	71
Joseph John	71
K & A Holdings Ltd	73
The Claimant's Evidence	82
Anil Ramasar	82
Kenrick Nicholas	94
Kassim Khan	96
Chandram Lurkhur	99
Rev's Mechanical & Engineering Services Limited	100
The Claimant's Evidence	103
Hemraj Siewnarine	103
Balraj Gopaulchan	116
Nishad Gopaulchan	119
Wayne Partapsingh	119
The Common Claimants' Witnesses	120
Dr. Ali	122
Cross-examination by Mr. Singh	124
Thomas George	125
The Central Audit Committee Report	130
Cross-examination	133
The Evidence for the Defendant	135
Duane Murray	135
Marissa Chattergoon	138
Cross-examination by Mr. Ronald Simon	142
Cross-examination by Mr. Naraine – JDR and R & S Boodoo	145
Cross-examination by Mr. Kamta — Junior Fabien Creighton	145
Cross-examination by Mr. Murphy – Hypolite General Contractors Co. Ltd.	148
Sebastien Edwards	149
Cross-examination by Mr. Simon	149
Cross-examination by Mr. Jai Naraine	152
Cross-examination by Mr. Kulraj Kamta	154
Cross-examination by Mr. Murphy	157
Re-examination by Mr. Singh	157
Questions asked by the Court	158
Pooran Ragbir	159
Kevin La Barrie	159
Shaheed Shah	161
Roger Dabideen	163
Submissions	163
Mr. Kamta	163
The Defendant's submissions — Creighton	166
Issues:	171
Was there a contract?	171
The Central Tenders Board Act Chapter 71:91	171
The Regulations	174
Relevant authorities	177
Sooknanan Singh	177
Mootilal Ramhit	180
Trinsalvage	184
Discussion	186
Discussion and Resolution	186
Conclusion on Junior Fabian Creighton	188
Conclusion on Cleophas Alexander Orr and Associates Services	191
Conclusion on JDR	192
Conclusion on R & S Boodoo Equipment Rental & Transport Limited	193
Conclusion on K & A Holdings Ltd	194
Conclusion on Hypolite General Contractors Limited	195
Conclusion on Rev's Mechanical & Engineering Services Limited's	196
Further remarks	196
Conclusion	199
Post script	201

Executive Summary

1 . The instant sets of proceedings were filed by the various claimants via a series of claims for works done for the State under the Unemployment Relief Programme (“URP”) for the period June — July 2013. The claimants have alleged that the works were done, applied for payment for the said works, but were never paid.

2 . On the other hand, the defendant contended that the claimants were neither requested nor contracted to do the said works and put them to strict proof that the said works were fully performed and completed to a satisfactory manner. It was also put in issue that the State's agent purportedly enabling the alleged contracts were actual State agents and or employees of the State acting within the ambit of their jurisdiction and held the power or authority or that they were lawfully exercising power which could be exercised by them. In particular, the claimants were put to proof that the relevant procurement rules were complied with and the contracts referred to were obtained and/or executed and/or awarded in compliance with the established procurement practices/procedures of the relevant State agency.

3 . This court's finding is that the defendant has been successful in proving that the process for formulating a contract with the State under the Central Tenders Board Act was not established and the parties that engaged the services with the claimants did not have the necessary authority to formulate and or grant such contracts.

4 . However, the court has found that the claimants would be entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis.

5 . Regrettably, three of the claimants, K & A Holdings Limited, Rev's Mechanical & Engineering Services Limited and Cleophas Alexander Orr and Associates Services specifically and directly declined to pursue the recovery of compensation for work done on that basis despite having been invited by this court to do so. Counsel for these claimants asserted that they would stand or fall on the validity of the contracts. As a result, their claims have been unsuccessful and are struck out with no orders as to costs.

6 . With respect to the other claimants, namely, Hypolite General Contractors Limited, Junior Fabien Creighton, R & S Boodoo Equipment Rental & Transport Limited and JDR Construction Limited, the court awards judgment to these claimants against the defendant to be assessed on a quantum meruit basis to be assessed in the following manner:

• 6.1. The parties are to agree by 6 March 2023 upon the appointment of a Quantity Surveyor or suitable expert to prepare a report comparing the respective scopes of work attributable to each of these contractors to their verifiable records; such verification to be conducted with the VAT and Board of Inland Revenue and other statutory requirements, returns, records, etc. that are available, where applicable. The said expert is to identify which of the sums claimed by the respective contractors have been verified from cogent documentation and which have not and the court will consider the same as necessary at the further hearing mentioned hereafter;

• 6.2. The court will give further directions in respect of this report within 21 days of receiving the same and fix a hearing in respect of the same. In the event that none of the work can be verified from cogent documentation, the court may consider if an award for nominal damages is appropriate.

7 . The issue of the costs in respect of these remaining claimants are reserved to await the outcome of the assessment process.

Introduction

8 . This judgment concerns a series of cases 1 that were brought for works allegedly done by the various claimants on behalf of the State. The facts in them are all generally the same except for specifics as to where the work was allegedly done and the contract prices for the same. The court dealt with the trials in all of the matters together by allowing all of the claimants in the matters to give evidence consecutively with their witnesses, and then consolidating the evidence to have all of the common witnesses for the claimants in all of the matters and all of the defendant's witnesses in all of the matters (who were the same in them all) give evidence thereafter. This way, the parties were all aware of what was...