The Vijay v/s EEEL saga drags on as stay of execution is granted |10 March 2021
The ongoing saga between Vijay Construction and the Eastern European Engineering Limited is far from over, after the former was awarded a temporary stay of execution by the Court of Appeal yesterday.
On October 2 last year, an appeal by Vijay Construction in the case was dismissed by the same court, permitting the Eastern European Engineering Limited (EEEL) to collect a $22 million compensation after hiring Vijay Construction to carry out construction work on the company's Savoy Hotel in 2011 through six contracts.
The company filed a Request for Arbitration in September 2012 before the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris and received a sole arbitrator award in November 2014.
The costs to be incurred by Vijay Construction for breaking the contract were never paid partly because the award was not enforceable until Seychelles became party to the 1958 New York Convention early last year.
The case was heard by Justices Mathilda Twomey, Anthony Fernando, and Oagile Bethuel Key Dingake, and two of them upheld the Supreme Court's previous ruling.
In yesterday’s session presided by Justices Fiona Robinson, Samia Andre and Gustave Dodin, Vijay Construction represented by attorney Bernard Georges was granted a temporary stay of execution, with the next hearing set for Tuesday March 30, while the ruling will be made on April 13.
A stay of execution is a court order to temporarily suspend the execution of a court judgment or other court order.
A stay can be granted automatically by operation of law or conventionally, when the parties in a civil or criminal case agree that no execution shall occur for a certain period. If a party appeals a decision, any judgment issued by the original court may be stayed until the appeal is resolved.
In an ex parte hearing involving Vijay Construction in the matter of the Companies Act 1972 and the Insolvency Act 2013, Chief Justice Ronny Govinden concluded that the petitioner (Vijay Construction) has contrary to its undertaking given to Court intentionally failed to comply with Regulation 23, 28 and 29 of the Winding up Regulations 1975.
“As we speak now, even if the court would have wanted to hear the case, the court will not have been able to do so given that there are interested parties, which could have been present and ready for the hearing, that cannot be present and exercise their right to be heard as a result of failure to comply with the legal procedures,” he explained.
“The undertaking given by counsel was long way back before the facts and circumstances relating to the non-appearance of counsel for the other side which arose yesterday or the day before,” added the Chief Justice who further noted that at the time counsel gave that undertaking, the matter before the Court of Appeal, which is the substance of the application for an adjournment, which he was not going to consider, was still live and operational and counsel could have given that indication to the Court.
“As a result I find that this is an abuse of the process of this Court and accordingly I will dismiss this petition with cost to the other side,” he concluded.
Roland Duval