The Court of Appeal has deferred its decision on an appeal lodged by Eastman Enterprises Ltd, a former contractor of the Cepep Company, challenging a High Court order to halt its lawsuit. The lawsuit pertains to the termination of over 300 contracts by Cepep shortly after the April 28 general election. Justices Peter Rajkumar, James Aboud, and Ricky Rahim heard arguments on October 31 before reserving their ruling. The central issue revolves around whether the High Court was correct in staying Eastman’s lawsuit due to an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause in the contract. Eastman’s legal team, led by Larry Lalla, SC, argued that the trial judge erred by treating the ADR clause as mandatory and failing to consider the contractor’s right to seek urgent injunctive relief. Lalla emphasized that a mediator could not grant such emergency relief and contended that the referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was premature. Representing Cepep, Anand Ramlogan, SC, defended the trial judge’s decision, asserting that the ADR process should precede court intervention and highlighting the alleged $1.4 billion in unauthorized contract extensions. The appeal stems from a High Court ruling by Justice Margaret Mohammed, who stayed Eastman’s lawsuit in August, directed case documents to the DPP, and ordered Eastman to pay Cepep’s legal costs. Eastman seeks to have its lawsuit and injunction application returned to the High Court, a declaration that the DPP referral was improper, and, if successful, for the Appeal Court’s decision to be forwarded to the DPP. The case underscores broader concerns over contract management and dispute resolution in public procurement.