Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Justice Sandra Kurtzious, on Monday, dismissed a multimillion dollar lawsuit filed by Dynamic Engineering Construction Company Limited against the Attorney General of Guyana.
The engineering company had claimed for in excess of $242M in damages from the Government of Guyana.
In the case – Dynamic Engineering Construction Company Limited v AG and Ministry of Public Infrastructure, filed on July 9, 2015 – the company alleged that it was assigned the contract titled ‘The Design and Construction of Kurubrong Bridge Amaila Falls Hydro Electricity Project’ but that the contract was breached by the previous Government.
The construction of the Kurubrong Bridge was part of a larger body of works aimed at completing the Amaila Falls Hydro Electricity Project which was proposed by the then Government in 2009. The Project was abandoned by a new Government in 2016, which Government cited concerns about the Project’s financing.
The engineering company said a notice was eventually issued by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure directing that it not proceed with design works, which conduct it claimed amounted to a breach of contract.
As such, it claimed for damages in excess of $121M for breach of contract, loss of profit and loss damage; and another $121.879M for loss of profit and other loss or damage; and interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing to the date of judgement and at a rate of 4% per annum until full y paid under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap 6:02.
However, the Counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Attorney General, argued among other things that there was no breach of contract, and that Dynamic Engineering Construction Company Limited did not provide evidence of the loss, including loss of profit, and other damages.
On December 9, 2020 when a trial was conducted, the claimant called two witnesses who were cross-examined by Counsel for the Attorney General’s Chambers.
On Monday, Justice Kurtzious ruled that there had been no breach of contract by the Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s action was dismissed and costs in the sum of $75,000 was awarded to the Defendants.
