In Brief
- The Ruling: On October 30, 2026, High Court Justice Sherlanne Pierre dismissed an approximately $24 million lawsuit brought by contractor Mainway Industrial Installation Ltd against State-owned EMBD, ordering Mainway to pay legal costs.
- The Dispute: Mainway sought $9.4 million for unpaid construction work dating back to 2015 on two La Romaine projects (originally contracted in 2008 and 2010 for over $102 million combined), plus $14.6 million in interest and late fees.
- The Central Issue: The claim was filed in 2025—ten years after the payments allegedly became due, and well outside the statutory four-year limitation period. (A previous 2019 lawsuit was dismissed after the claim form expired before being served).
- The Arguments: Mainway (represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC) argued EMBD deliberately concealed the 2015 Interim Payment Certificates issued by project engineer Planviron Ltd until late 2023. EMBD (represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC) countered that nothing was hidden and the contractor failed to use available legal options to get the documents sooner.
- The Verdict: The Court agreed with EMBD, ruling that Mainway had ample opportunity to investigate the missing certificates years earlier—noting the contractor sent five demand letters between 2018 and 2019 without ever specifically asking for the certificates.
By Prior Beharry
The State-owned Estate Management and Business Development Company Limited (EMBD) has secured a major legal victory after the High Court dismissed an approximately $24 million claim brought against it by contractor Mainway Industrial Installation Limited, ruling that the company waited too long to pursue the matter.
In a decision delivered on October 30, 2026, Justice Sherlanne Pierre ruled in favour of EMBD, dismissing Mainway’s claim in its entirety on the grounds that it was filed outside the four-year limitation period prescribed by law.
Mainway was also ordered to pay EMBD’s legal costs.
The dispute stemmed from two construction contracts governed by the international rules of the FIDIC Red Book. The first, awarded in 2008 for $82,306,897.97, was the main residential infrastructure contract for the La Romaine Residential Development Project, covering land preparation, roads, water supply, sewerage, drainage, and a detention pond. A second contract, valued at $20,254,845.00, was awarded in 2010 for a “utility corridor” project involving electrical equipment foundations, pull-boxes, protection slabs, and underground trenching.
Mainway claimed it was owed approximately $9.4 million for four outstanding payment requests dating back to 2015, along with approximately $14.6 million in interest and finance charges for late payment, bringing the total claim to roughly $24 million.
Under the contractual arrangements, Planviron Ltd—the engineering firm appointed by EMBD to oversee the projects—was responsible for assessing Mainway’s work and issuing Interim Payment Certificates (IPCs) to EMBD, with copies sent to Mainway.
The central issue before the court was whether Mainway could file a fresh claim in 2025—ten years after the payments allegedly became due—when the law requires such claims to be brought within four years. Mainway had previously initiated legal proceedings over the same dispute and sought disclosure of the certificates in 2019, but that case was dismissed after the claim form expired before being served on EMBD.
Representing the contractor, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, argued that Mainway was entitled to wait until it had confirmation that the engineer had issued the IPCs approving payment. Mainway maintained that although the certificates were issued in 2015, it was only informed of this in October 2023 and did not receive copies until November 2023. Maharaj argued that Mainway could not properly pursue payment without the certificates and contended that EMBD had deliberately concealed the relevant facts to prevent the contractor from suing.
Countering on behalf of EMBD, Anand Ramlogan, SC, argued there was no evidence to suggest EMBD had hidden facts from the contractor. He maintained that Mainway had legal options available to obtain copies of the necessary approvals from the engineer and that EMBD was not to blame for the contractor’s failure to take timely legal action.
Justice Pierre agreed with EMBD’s submissions, rejecting the argument of deliberate concealment and holding that Mainway could not rely on the late receipt of the documents to justify the delay. The judge found that Mainway had been put on notice to investigate the matter long before 2023 and had not demonstrated that anything prevented it from making inquiries earlier.
“In the court’s view, Mainway was put on its enquiry from the moment the relevant period had elapsed for issuance of an IPC and it had received no copy of it; that is the very matter itself,” Justice Pierre stated.
The judge also noted that while Mainway wrote five letters to EMBD between 2018 and 2019 demanding payment and interest, the contractor failed to expressly raise the issue that it had not received copies of the IPCs.
The ruling shields the State-owned enterprise from a multimillion-dollar liability and protects public funds.
EMBD was represented by Ramlogan, Aasha Ramlal, and Aria Khan, instructed by Aaron Regault of Freedom Law Chambers. Mainway was represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, and Michael Rooplal, instructed by Shastine Mootilal.
