Latest update January 15th, 2025 3:45 AM
Latest News
- Auditors given 5 months to audit Exxon’s US$19.6B expenditure
- Bar Association calls for immediate appointment of Chancellor and Chief Justice
- Gaza ceasefire ‘closer than ever’, Hamas says it is still awaiting Israeli maps
- Pigeons shut down Charlestown Secondary School
- One confirmed dead in Bartica bike accidents
Lawyer asks Appeal Court to reject NBS challenge to $79M award to former CEO
Kaieteur News – Senior Counsel Edward Luckhoo has asked the Appeal Court to reject the New Building Society’s (NBS) challenge to the $79 M judgment award granted to its dismissed Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Maurice Arjoon, on the grounds that he (Arjoon) earned every right to his benefits.
Former CEO of NBS: Maurice Arjoon.
Senior Counsel, Edward Luckhoo.
The former CEO had filed a lawsuit challenging the grounds by which he was dismissed from his job. Arjoon and two of his managers were fired on allegations of fraud in 2006 regarding a $69 M withdrawal made from the account of Bibi Shamina Khan, a member of the society at the time. The men endured negative publicity, as well as a trial in the Magistrate Court before they were cleared of the charges.
An Ombudsman’s report had later confirmed Arjoon’s contention that he was framed for refusing to lend some $2B of NBS’ money to the Bharrat Jagdeo-led government for the construction of the Berbice River Bridge. Arjoon and another manager (Kent Vincent) then turned around and filed separate lawsuits suing the institution for wrongful dismissal. Arjoon’s matter dragged on for more than six years in the High Court before the Court eventually granted a $79M judgment in his favour. However, the matter did not end there, as the NBS appealed the Court’s decision to pay Arjoon. The issue between Arjoon and the Mortgage Financing Firm continues to drag on with NBS taking Arjoon on in an appeal.
At a previous hearing before the Appeal Court, attorney Pauline Chase, the lawyer for NBS argued that Arjoon’s dismissal was justifiable on the grounds that he was found liable of misconduct in the performance of his duties. In a continuation of his oral arguments, Luckhoo dealt at length with exhibits related to the High Court trial for which Arjoon secured judgment against NBS.Responding to the contentions of the attorney for NBS, Mr. Luckhoo inter alia, belaboured on the points which supported his contention that Arjoon was within his right to claim his pension and benefits following his dismissal from NBS.
The lawyer underscored that the attorney for NBS had wholly misconceived the meaning pension and severance pay. He noted that in her presentation before the Court, Chase made numerous references to the Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act (TESPA) but the points alluded to, did not apply to Arjoon’s case. “The Termination of Employment and Severance Pay Act has nothing to do with the respondent’s right to his pension and benefits… the Act came into force in 1998… and is limited in the circumstances in which an employee can be denied the right to his benefits ” Luckhoo said noting that Arjoon did not fall within those circumstances.
Additionally, Lukhoo pointed out that the NBS is seeking to make new objections against Arjoon’s claim for pension and benefits. He noted that that when the former CEO put the figure in for his pension claim there was no objection or cross examination of it by the legal team for NBS.
He stressed therefore that the appellants had no legal premise, from which, they are to challenge the amount. Further, the attorney argued too that not only is Arjoon entitled to the sum calculated for his pension but that the monies are by law, seen as an earned employee benefit. He explained that since the employee, who in this case Arjoon, had been contributing to the pension scheme up until he was dismissed he was lawfully entitled to claim those monies.
With regard to the claim of misconduct on Arjoon‘s part by the appellants, the attorney noted that this was never proven in the High Court or otherwise.
He explained that for misconduct or serious misconduct to be established by the society, there was a procedure. This procedure included, according to the lawyer, an audit being done and certification by auditors citing the serious misconduct.
“None of this was done… Mr. Arjoon was dismissed for serious misconduct but there was no certification of an audit… [And] the directors did not determine the circumstances for which he was liable,” Luckhoo added.
Moreover, the lawyer stated that Arjoon should not be denied his rights to any of his benefits since the claim of misconduct or serious misconduct was never proven. Luckhoo said as a consequence in the cross appeal, the respondent is claiming for his other benefits including his outstanding leave passage and full interest incurred on other benefits.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Members of the National Assembly should exercise civility towards their peers
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- The following column was published two years ago in response to the same controversy that... more
Clarifying misconceptions about the Panama Canal
Sir Ronald Sanders (Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS) By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News–... more
Weekend Cartoon
