A dramatic legal confrontation between Jeva Trading NV and the Surinamese government has reached a critical juncture following a landmark appellate court decision that fundamentally undermined the company’s case foundation. What began as a routine summary proceeding has transformed into a complex legal battle questioning the very validity of the trading company’s claims.
The case originated from Jeva Trading’s attempt to leverage a December 31, 2025 summary judgment that had compelled the State to issue phytosanitary Mora certificates to six timber exporters. Jeva claimed identical factual and legal circumstances and sought analogous application of that verdict. However, the Court of Justice’s January 27, 2026 ruling completely nullified the original judgment, declaring that the administrative practice cited could not produce legal effects—effectively removing the foundation of Jeva’s case.
In response, Jeva’s attorney Joan Nibte filed an incidental claim modification, withdrawing the request for Mora certificates and seeking to continue proceedings based on damages and other legal consequences. Nibte argued this adjustment was necessary for procedural order, legal certainty, and respect for judicial hierarchy following the appellate court’s decisive ruling.
The State’s legal representatives, Deepak Jairam and Sangeeta Nanda, mounted a vigorous defense, asserting that Jeva’s claim had been exclusively built upon the annulled judgment. They contended that without this foundation, the claim became ‘a bodiless demand resting on nothing’ and that claim modification cannot serve to construct an entirely new case within existing proceedings.
The State further accused Jeva of procedural abuse and unnecessary delay, noting that the company filed its summary proceeding on January 22, 2026, while the appeal was already pending and the original judgment was ‘on the operating table.’ The State suggested Jeva was attempting to effectively appeal the Court of Justice’s decision through a backdoor channel—something beyond the summary judge’s authority.
Summary Judge Suzanne Chu has postponed all decisions regarding both the claim modification and the main case until after February 13 oral hearings where both parties will be heard on the incidental matter. The court now faces a fundamental choice: either reject the claim modification due to vanished legal grounds, ending the case without substantive treatment, or accept that claims can be ‘recalibrated’ after the destruction of their original basis and allow the case to proceed on a new track.