The appeal by former director Wendy Jap-A-Joe against the ruling in the governance dispute at the Telecommunicatie Autoriteit Suriname (TAS, Suriname’s Telecommunications Authority) was heard by the Hof van Justitie (Court of Justice) on Wednesday, October 28, 2026. Jap-A-Joe’s defence seeks to have the earlier ruling by cantonal court judge Robert Praag overturned. The lawyers for both parties expect that the court may issue a ruling within a few days.
Attorney Gerold Sewcharan, acting on behalf of TAS, confirmed after the hearing that Jap-A-Joe filed an appeal on Tuesday, October 27. According to him, the court granted leave to proceed on the same day, allowing the case to be handled on an expedited basis. “That is exceptional, but it is permitted,” Sewcharan said.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Jap-A-Joe’s defence presented its objections to the ruling by cantonal court judge Praag. The opposing party will have the opportunity to respond on Thursday, October 29, at 3 p.m.
Appeal seeks to overturn ruling
According to Sewcharan, the appeal is aimed at setting aside the earlier judicial decision. He stressed that it is not solely about postponing the enforcement of the ruling.
“This is genuinely an appeal. The intention is to have the ruling by Mr Praag overturned,” the attorney stated.
Sewcharan expects that the court will make a decision within a few days after his side’s response. According to him, this would conclude the hearing of the injunction proceedings on appeal. However, he does not rule out that other legal proceedings may follow afterwards.
Jap-A-Joe’s defence criticises earlier assessment
Attorney Iris Nazir, who represents Jap-A-Joe, hopes that the Hof van Justitie will reach a different conclusion from the cantonal court judge. According to Nazir, the facts, circumstances and submitted evidence were not assessed in sufficient depth during the proceedings at first instance.
“There was only a very cursory examination of the facts and circumstances and of everything we put forward,” she told Limfm The attorney believes that the cantonal court judge paid too little attention to the documents submitted by the defence. She expects the court to examine the case more thoroughly.
Attorneys differ over preparation time
Discussions after the hearing also showed that the attorneys differ in their views on the preparation time available. Sewcharan indicated that his side would respond to the submitted grounds of appeal on Thursday. Nazir, however, does not believe that the opposing party was given insufficient time to prepare.
According to her, the same facts and circumstances are at issue on appeal as during the earlier hearing. “They are exactly the same facts. Nothing new has been added. It is exactly the same case,” Nazir said.
She said that she prepared and submitted her procedural documents on Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning. According to her, the opposing party should likewise be able to prepare a response within a short period of time.
Employment agreement remains an important point of dispute
An important part of the legal conflict concerns Jap-A-Joe’s legal position after the expiry of her statutory term of appointment as director of TAS.
Nazir stressed that, in her view, the court must explicitly take into account the employment agreement and the interests of her client.
The defence seeks to prevent Jap-A-Joe from being left without income as a result of the termination of her position as director, without her contractual rights having been sufficiently assessed.
Nazir hopes that the court will provide clarity on how Jap-A-Joe’s employment-law position should be handled.
Earlier ruling remains in force for now
The appeal follows the ruling by cantonal court judge Robert Praag on Monday, October 26. The judge rejected Jap-A-Joe’s claims and ruled in favour of TAS in the dispute over the transfer of management.
According to the ruling, Jap-A-Joe’s statutory term of appointment has expired and she may no longer act on behalf of TAS as director. She must also transfer the administrative responsibilities, documents and company assets to the Raad van Commissarissen (RvC, Supervisory Board).
The cantonal court judge also provisionally suspended her employment agreement until a possible proceedings on the merits determines its legal validity.
The ruling was declared provisionally enforceable. This means that filing an appeal does not automatically suspend its enforcement.
Clarity possibly on Friday
The hearing will continue on Thursday, October 29, with the response from the attorneys for the opposing party.
Nazir does not expect the court to issue a ruling immediately after that response. She hopes that the court will then consider the arguments and possibly make a decision on Friday, October 30.
Sewcharan also anticipates a prompt ruling. Whether the court will uphold, amend or overturn the earlier ruling remains to be seen. Regardless of the outcome, the legal dispute over Jap-A-Joe’s employment agreement may continue in separate proceedings on the merits.
