See full statement from the Attorney General Chambers:
The Full Court on 22 September 2026 allowed the Attorney General’s appeal against preservation orders (injunctions) made against the State in the proceedings involving contractor VAMED Engineering GmbH. The dispute concerns the Ministry of Health’s termination of construction contracts for the Georgetown Paediatric and Maternal Hospital and the New Amsterdam Hospital Campus.
Sitting in the Full Court, Chief Justice Navindra Singh and Justice Zamilla Ally-Seepaul set aside five orders made against the State by Justice Renita Singh on 6 August 2026 in the following terms:
“4. The Ministry of Health is hereby ordered to preserve the GMPH and the NAHC sites.
- The Ministry of Health is hereby ordered to preserve the 52 containers and equipment on the GMPH site and to not open nor interfere with same.
- VAMED Engineering is hereby ordered to preserve the 52 containers and equipment on the GMPH site and to not open nor interfere with same.
- VAMED Engineering’s security personnel only are allowed access to the GMPH site only for the sole purpose of securing the 52 containers and equipment.
- The Ministry of Health is hereby ordered to preserve all contractor’s documents, property designs, plan and intellectual property.”
The Court stated:
“This appeal concerns the validity of five Preservation Orders made by the Learned Judge, following her refusal to grant Conservatory and Restraining Orders sought by VAMED Engineering against the Ministry of Health. The central question is whether having refused the substantive interim relief sought on both jurisdictional and discretionary grounds, the Learned Trial Judge could nevertheless make substantially similar orders under the guise of preserving property. For the reasons which follow, we find that the Preservation Orders cannot stand. They are inconsistent with the Learned Trial Judge’s findings. Their legal foundation was inadequately established and their substantive effect was not properly considered.”
The Court held that section 16 of the State Liability and Proceedings Act prohibits injunctions against the State in proceedings of this kind. That prohibition could not be circumvented by describing orders regulating the State’s conduct as preservation orders or by relying on the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Court also found that the orders lacked the necessary statutory basis under the Arbitration Act 2024 and conflicted with the trial judge’s own findings that there was no urgency and that damages were an adequate remedy.
The High Court’s refusal of VAMED’s applications for conservatory and restraining orders remains undisturbed, as does its order referring the underlying contract dispute to arbitration.
The Court awarded the Attorney General GY$500,000 in costs.
In short, the Ministry of Health is now cleared to take possession of the sites, containers, equipment and associated construction materials and to proceed with the projects as it sees fit.
The Appellant was represented by the Honourable Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC, together with Miss Shoshana V. Lall, Miss Prithima Kissoon and Mr Joshua Cullen of the Attorney General’s Chambers. The Respondent was represented by Mr Nigel Hughes of Hughes, Fields and Stoby.
For ease of reference, we attach a copy of the official verbatim oral decision of the Full Court in Case No. 2026/73-FC-APL-DEM-CIV/2026/19-HC-CD-SOC-DEM-CIV should you require further amplifications.
Discover more from INews Guyana
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
