The Trinidad and Tobago Electricity Commission (T&TEC) has filed a High Court lawsuit against Senior Counsel Keith Scotland and attorney Keisha Kydd-Hannibal over the handling of a $2.39 million debt-recovery case.T&TEC is alleging breach of contract, professional negligence and, alternatively, deceit. It claims that three separate lawsuits filed to recover $2,392,220.11 in unpaid electricity charges from Flavorite Foods Ltd failed procedurally, leaving it without a live claim when the limitation period expired in January this year.

REPRESENTING T&TEC: Anand Ramlogan

In its Statement of Case, filed on August 27, T&TEC alleges that Scotland, whom it says was personally retained to conduct the litigation, failed to properly supervise and prosecute the matter and failed to ensure the Commission was accurately informed about the status of the proceedings.T&TEC’s legal team is led by former attorney general Anand Ramlogan, SC, with Amirah Ramdass as instructing attorney, along with Ganesh Saroop, Aaron Regault and Jordanne Pereira.T&TEC says it retained Scotland, practising through Virtus Chambers, in November 2022 to recover the debt, interest and costs from Flavorite.The first lawsuit, filed in December 2022, was automatically struck out after no affidavit proving service was filed and no application for default judgment was made, T&TEC alleges.The Commission says that in October 2023 it was instead told the claim had been served and was “withdrawn and re-filed”. It alleges that account was false and that Scotland knew by September or early October that the first matter had been automatically struck out.According to T&TEC, Scotland acknowledged in his pre-action response that he advised Kydd-Hannibal to re-file the proceedings and seek default judgment if Flavorite did not defend.A second lawsuit was filed in October 2023. T&TEC says it was not asked to authorise the fresh action and was repeatedly led throughout 2024 to believe that an application for default judgment was before the court.However, the Commission alleges that no such application was ever filed and that the second lawsuit had itself been automatically struck out by about August 11, 2024.T&TEC says a third lawsuit was filed in October 2024 without its knowledge or authority. It alleges that the matter was never validly served and was also automatically struck out in August 2025.The Commission says it was never told that the third case existed or that it had failed.Although Kydd-Hannibal is alleged to have carried out many of the procedural acts, T&TEC is seeking to hold Scotland personally responsible, arguing that he accepted the retainer and had overall responsibility for the litigation.It alleges that he failed to ensure the cases were properly filed and served, that default judgment was pursued and that court deadlines were monitored. T&TEC also alleges that he failed to keep it informed about the true status of the proceedings and failed to take steps to preserve its claim before the limitation period expired.The Commission further alleges that when Scotland ceased practising law following his appointment as a government minister, he failed to ensure an orderly and informed handover of the matter.T&TEC is also advancing an alternative claim of deceit against Scotland, centred on the representation that the first lawsuit had been “withdrawn and re-filed”.It alleges that Scotland knew the case had actually been automatically struck out and either made, authorised or adopted the representation, or knowingly allowed it to remain uncorrected.However, T&TEC has also pleaded that if Scotland did not make statements attributed to him concerning the alleged default judgment application, Kydd-Hannibal falsely represented that he had done so.Scotland’s defenceScotland, through his attorneys, has disputed T&TEC’s position.He acknowledged settling the Claim Form and Statement of Case in the first action and later learning that it had been automatically struck out. He also acknowledged advising that the proceedings be re-filed and that default judgment be pursued if no defence was filed.However, Scotland maintains that Kydd-Hannibal subsequently told him the second case had been served, no defence had been filed, and the necessary application for default judgment had been prepared.He says when he became a government minister in August 2024, he informed T&TEC that he could no longer practise law and proposed that the files be handed over to Kydd-Hannibal.Scotland denies personally contacting the Registrar and says he knew nothing about, and played no role in, the third lawsuit. He has also contended that Kydd-Hannibal was separately retained as instructing attorney.T&TEC rejects that position, saying the only written retainer was addressed specifically to Scotland and that no separate retainer letter was issued to Kydd-Hannibal.The Commission also rejects Scotland’s contention that the proceedings are motivated by “political mileage”, saying its case is based on the written retainer and his admitted involvement.T&TEC says it relied on representations that a valid case remained before the court and that a default judgment application was awaiting action by the Registry. It alleges that it did not discover the true procedural history until 2026, by which time it was too late to bring fresh proceedings.It says had it known the true position earlier, it could have engaged replacement attorneys or taken other steps to preserve its claim.T&TEC is seeking damages representing the value of the $2.39 million claim, or alternatively the lost opportunity to recover it, together with interest and costs.It is also claiming $300,000 plus VAT in remedial and investigative legal expenses, as well as aggravated and exemplary damages.The Commission is asking the High Court to award damages for breach of contract and/or negligence or, alternatively, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation or negligent misstatement, together with interest, costs and any other relief the court considers just.