Prasad v Commissioner of Police 2 [2004] FJHC 384; HBC0164.2004L (2 March 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0164 OF 2004L

BETWEEN:

GEORGE KAMLES PRASAD
f/n Kamta Prasad
Plaintiff

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
1st Defendant

AND:

DC 507 SALESI SIGANISUCU VULAKORO
2nd Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
3rd Defendant

Plaintiff in Person
Counsel for the Defendants: Ms. S. Tabaiwalu

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 2 March 2004

EXTEMPORE RULING

There is before the court a Summons filed on behalf of the defendants seeking an order that leave be granted to amend the defendants’ statement of defence in the formal manner, the copy annexed to that Summons. The application is made pursuant to Order 20 Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. Order 20 Rule 5 provides:

“That the Court made any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff to amend his writ or any party to amend his pleading on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner as may be directed.”

The limitations of course are imposed if an amendment would bring into play some action or defence that might otherwise be statute barred.

The principles applicable to the granting or the consideration of an application for leave to amend is that all such amendments ought to be made to facilitate the determination of the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceedings or alternatively to correct to correct any deficit or error in any proceedings before the court.

Nothing has been put to me that would suggest that the plaintiff is in anyway prejudiced by the application that is now made to the court. It is however suggested or submitted by the plaintiff that a delay has been occasioned in the appearing of the action by virtue of the cause that has been taken by the defendant in seeking leave to amend. This may or may not be so. I note that the matter has not progressed to the point of having been set down for trial or of the Order 34 procedures having taken place.

In these circumstances, it would appear to me that there is indeed no prejudice to the plaintiff by granting the amendments as sought by the defendant and accordingly, the Order of the Court will be:

1. Order in terms of the Summons dated the 28^th September 2004 as to costs be costs in the cause.
   

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
2 March 2005