United General Party v Aull [1999] FJHC 23; Hbc0165d.99s (8 April 1999)

Fiji Islands - United General Party v Aull - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 165 OF 1999

BET

:

UNITED GENERAL PARTY
Plaintiff

AND:

1. WILLIAM GRR AULL
2. LEO BARRY SMITH
3. PHILIP KING
4. JAMES BINGWOR
5. DANIEL NIEL JOHNS
6. HAROLD SWANN
7. KEN LOW
Defendants

Mr. H. Nagin for the Plaintiff
Mr. M.B. Patel for the Defendants

DECISION

This is the Plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunction as per motion filed herein.

Onlythird, fourth, fifth and sind sixth defendants have been served and they are represented by Mr. M.B. Patel.

I have heard both counsel on the motion and have given due consideration to their arguments.

From the affidavits filed herein it is revealed that the General Voters Party (GVP) and the General Electors Party (GEP) have resolved to form the United General Party (UGP).

The UGP has a Constitution and in Clause G of the Preamble it is stated that:

Neither the GVP or the GEP will contest or allow their respective names or symbols to be used by any person in national or local body election and their respective names and symbols shall with adoption of this Constitution be the property of the United General Party.

In the Fiji Islands Government Gazette of 5 March 1999 the GVP and GEP have voluntarily applied for de-registration of the respective parties. The outcome of the decision of the Supervisor of elections of this application is not known as at today.

The defendants are members of either GVP or GEP and UGP.

A Writ of Summons has been filed claiming an injunction as in the Motion. This is the very issue that the Court has to decide.

Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of this application it is not clear as to the state of the symbols particularly because the Supervisor of Elections has not taken a decision on de-registration as yet. The symbols belong to GEP and GVP. I have nothing before me to say that either GEP or GVP are objecting to the use of these symbols by the defendants. In this situation it is not clear whether it is open to the defendants to use those symbols.

The question whether the use of these symbols by the defendants will cause confusion or not is something which cannot be decided without a substantive hearing on the Writ.

The defendants (those that have been served with motion) have objected to the application.

Upon a careful consideration of their affidavits and submissions of both counsel I find that this is not an appropriate case to grant the interlocutory injunction. There has to be a trial of the action to decide the issue.

The application is therefore refused and the interim injunction is dissolved with costs against the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.

D. Pathik
JUDGE

At Suva
8th April, 1999

Hbco165d.99s