Caption: Justice of Appeal James Aboud

 

By Prior Beharry

THE Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal of North Plant LPG Co-operative Society Limited against an employee who was injured while connecting a hose at El Pecos at Royal Palm Plaza more than ten years ago.

Lorry man Gregory Maicoo sustained injuries to his face, scalp, and the dorsum of both hands in an explosion that occurred on February 5, 2015. On March 4, 2022, Justice Ricky Rahim, as he then was, ordered North Plant to pay Maicoo $160,000 in general damages for negligence, plus 2.5% interest from the claim’s filing date to the judgment date.

North Plant, represented by attorney Kelvin Ramkissoon, instructed by Nizam Saladeen, appealed Justice Rahim’s ruling. Maicoo was represented by Ancil Moses.

On Thursday, the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar and James Aboud delivered a 29-page unanimous ruling.

Delivered by Justice Aboud, the judgement upheld all the orders by Justice Rahim, who is now in the Court of Appeal.

He said, “Maicoo, a lorry man employed by North Plant, was accompanied by another employee, Neville Rampersad, on deliveries that day. At the time of the explosion, a hose was being connected from North Plant’s gas delivery truck to El Pecos’s gas tanks.

“A loud explosion occurred, followed by a fire, causing widespread property damage, fatalities, and injuries, the subject of other High Court claims. This appeal concerns Maicoo’s claim. He suffered burn injuries to his face, scalp, and the dorsum of both hands.”

The blast at El Pecos occurred approximately at 10.35 am on February 5, 2015, exactly one year since a fire had damaged the restaurant’s Woodbrook location on Ariapita Avenue. In all, about a dozen patrons and staff sustained serious injuries. Four months afterward, John Soo Ping Chow succumbed to his injuries at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida.

North Plant’s attorney Ramkissoon argued that Maicoo’s testimony contained significant inconsistencies that undermined his credibility as a witness.

Ramkissoon believed the trial judge should have dismissed Maicoo’s evidence in favour of Rampersad’s account.

The inconsistencies noted in Maicoo’s testimony included his changing statements regarding his knowledge of the flow valve, interactions with the restaurant manager, training on delivery procedures, and the sequence of events during the gas leak and explosion.

In response, Moses contended that the trial judge was in the best position to assess Maicoo’s credibility and had done so thoroughly.

Justice Rahim found Maicoo’s evidence more credible and consistent compared to Rampersad’s. The judge highlighted several points:

• Maicoo’s statements aligned with his previous accounts and a Fire Investigation Report.
• The judge did not believe Rampersad’s claim of inspecting the hose, which he introduced late in his testimony.
• The evidence suggested Rampersad engaged the gas flow before it was safe, supporting the conclusion that gas was present in the hose due to improper procedure.
• The judge determined Rampersad attempted to change his narrative inconsistently.

Justice Aboud said that Justice Rahim’s analysis was thorough and dismissed any arguments to overturn his findings.

He said, “Consequently, the trial judge’s findings were upheld, as they were based on a careful evaluation of the evidence, and the appellate court found no material error in the trial judge’s conclusions. The court emphasized the thorough nature of the trial judge’s analysis and dismissed any arguments to overturn his findings.”