High Court orders gov’t, contractor secure unfinished Ogle hospital equipment

Last Updated on Thursday, 6 August 2026, 23:21 by Writer

The High Court on Thursday ruled that the Ministry of Health and the Austrian healthcare construction company, VAMED Engineering, must secure equipment at the Ogle, East Coast Demerara, worksite of the Guyana Maternal and Paediatric Hospital (GMPH), pending the start of arbitration proceedings brought by the company over unpaid monies.

Justice Renita Singh also decided to refer VAMED’s statement of claim for EUR45.3 million filed on July 27 to the arbitration tribunal and the case would remain pending before the court until the determination of the arbitration proceedings.

She ordered the health ministry and VAMED Engineering to preserve 52 containers of equipment on the GMPH site and not to open or interfere with them.

Further the court also stated that VAMED Engineering’s security personnel only are allowed access to the GMPH site “for the sole purpose of securing” those containers and equipment.

Justice Singh also ordered the health ministry to preserve all contractor’s documents, property designs, plans and intellectual property.

The decision also states that by consent of The Attorney General Anil Nandlall and VAMED’s lawyer Nigel Hughes, “the crane on site is to be retuned to VAMED Engineering forthwith.”

In press statement issued on behalf of VAMED, those orders concerning the equipment and other properties became necessary after the Health Ministry, contrary to an undertaking by the Attorney General, allegedly moved in on July 28, 2026 and forced VAMED’s security contractor (BK Security Inc.) to vacate, and took possession of the Ogle Hospital site and the New Amsterdam Hospital site,” the written brief to the media states.

But Justice Singh, in her decision on Thursday, said she did not find that the ministry of mealth flagrantly dishonoured the undertakings of the attorney general.

“However, this Court believes that while this matter is heading to Arbitration, both parties should act in good faith. Hence, the Court finds that it is prudent to give orders which would preserve and protect the assets especially since the ownership of the containers are in dispute,” she adds.