Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A San Juan businessman will have to wait a little over a week to learn the outcome of his lawsuit over damage to his business allegedly caused by a faulty sewer pipeline.
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad reserved judgment in Matthew Edwards’ case against the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) to next week Thursday after presiding over a trial at the Waterfront Judicial Centre in Port-of-Spain yesterday morning.
In his lawsuit, Edwards, who operates a store selling pirated DVDs, computer parts, toys and ice cream at a rented building in San Juan, claimed the issue with WASA’s sewer pipeline arose in late October 2021 when he noticed water and sewerage overflowing from the toilet at the property.
He initially believed the toilet was clogged and sought to rectify it using a rubber plunger. He said his landlord came to his assistance after his attempts to stop the flow failed.
They eventually cut the PVC pipe connecting the building’s sewer system to the WASA sewer pipeline which runs underground along the Eastern Main Road.
Edwards claimed that his business suffered significant damage as it was flooded with sewage before he and his landlord were able to implement the temporary solution. He said he and his landlord made several reports to WASA but the authority’s staff took more than a month to respond and repair the issue, which he claimed emanated from its pipeline.
Edwards claimed that he lost almost $60,000 in stock and spent almost $3,000 cleaning the business. He also claimed that he lost out on over $20,000 in profits as he was forced to close his business for 45 days before the situation with the sewer pipeline was addressed by WASA.
He contended that WASA was negligent in failing to periodically inspect and maintain the pipeline and in its delay in rectifying the issue.
Edwards maintained his claims about his business being flooded even after being shown photographs he supplied after the flood had allegedly subsided.
WASA’s lawyer Kirk Bengochea pointed out that boxes containing stuffed animals which were on the ground did not appear to be waterlogged. He also asked why Edwards had not taken photographs of the flooded business.
In its defence, WASA admitted that the overflow was due to a collapse in its sewer infrastructure but denied any wrongdoing as it claimed that it has a proper and adequate maintenance programme.
“The sewerage overflow occurred not as a result of a failure to maintain the pipeline but because of the age of the sewerage infrastructure along the Eastern Main Road in Petit Bourg,” it said.
WASA’s sewer systems manager Terron Cobham, who supervised the initial site visit and the eventual repairs, admitted that he and his colleague’s response was delayed as at the time they were engaged in a major project to reroute water main pipelines in Beetham Gardens.
“The defendant prioritises jobs according to the order in which the reports are made or the severity of the job. In this instance, WASA was mandated to attend to the Beetham Gardens repairs which had to take priority as the trunk main had collapsed,” Cobham said.
He confirmed that the overflow was most likely due to WASA’s faulty sewer pipeline.
“Based on my 20 years of experience, I believe that it is possible that the claimant’s line at the point of connection became damaged due to the defendant’s aged main and the effect of the sewer gases over an extended period,” Cobham said.
While being cross-examined by Edwards’ lawyer Javier Forrester, Cobham explained that the lifespan of sewer lines could be affected by an increase in the population of an area and the introduction of restaurants.
He said he and his colleagues periodically check on the sewer pipelines but admitted that WASA did not have a procedure for changing maintenance schedules based on population increases.
