Rafiq v Lautoka City Council [2004] FJHC 415; HBC0314.2002L (10 May 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0314 OF 2002L

BETWEEN:

ABDUL RAFIQ
f/n Abdul Khalia
Plaintiff

AND:

LAUTOKA CITY COUNCIL
Defendant

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Dr. Sahu Khan
Counsel for the Defendant: Mr. V. Mishra

Date of Hearing: 30 March 2004
Date of Judgment: 10 May 2004

JUDGMENT

The Application

The defendant applies by way of a Summons filed on 17 June 2003 for orders that the plaintiff’s Writ of Summons be struck out on the basis that the claim is frivolous and/or vexatious and is an abuse of the processes of the court.

In addition, the defendant seeks leave to amend its statement of defence.

The application is made pursuant to Order 18 Rule 18 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court with respect to the striking out of the plaintiff’s Writ of Summons and pursuant to Order 20 Rule 5 with respect to the proposed amendment.

The application is supported by an affidavit of Pusp Raj sworn on 13 June 2003.

The application is opposed and the plaintiff relies upon an affidavit of Abdul Kaiyum sworn on 14 July 2003. This affidavit is sworn by a person who purports to be the agent of the plaintiff. I have difficulty accepting that an agent is able to make the sworn statements made in his affidavit about which I have more to say later and also as to the admissibility of the document generally.

Background

It is apparent from the pleadings and the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion that the defendant council sought to recover arrears of rates owing with respect to the property known as the Lautoka Sports and Social Club.

The defendant counsel engaged its solicitors to act on its behalf and it would appear that after obtaining a judgment for the arrears of rates, those solicitors had been instructed to proceed to sell the property to recover the arrears.

An advertisement was placed by the solicitors in a newspaper seeking tenders for the sale of the property.

The advertisement describes the building and land and indicates that it is comprised in Crown Lease No. 84768 being Lot 6 Section 26 Lautoka Town on Plan ND3483 containing an area of 3 roods 07.8 perches.

The advertisement also states, “constructed on the property is a concrete building with big hall, bar, office room and other amenities used for club. The sale is on “as is where is” basis.”

It would appear that the plaintiff was the successful tenderer for the purchase of the building and then engaged the same solicitor as that acting for the defendant council to act on his behalf on the purchase.

After the purchase was complete, it appears that the plaintiff then learnt that the buildings erected on the subject land in fact encroached on adjoining land.

The plaintiff in its statement of claim pleads that the defendant made representations and that those representations were fraudulent, in that, the defendant knew them to be false.

It would appear that the representation upon which the plaintiff relies are the words “constructed on the property is a concrete building with big hall, bar, office room and other amenities used for club.” It would appear although it is not clear that the plaintiff seeks to place on these words and interpretation that they in fact mean constructed on the property and wholly within its boundaries is a “concrete building with big hall, bar, office room and other amenities used for club”.

The plaintiff further pleads that the same representation was made recklessly and or negligently. In that the defendant would have known that the building was constructed not within the boundary of the lease. It is not stated but presumably implied that this pleading refers not only that the defendant would have known but that the defendant should have communicated this fact to the plaintiff purchaser.

The plaintiff submits that although no time for making applications to strike out the statement of claim is specified in the rule that the application must be made promptly and in this regard relies upon Ram Pratap v Maleli Raibe - Lautoka High Court Civil Action No. 414 of 1985.

How it can be suggested that the application in this instance is not being made promptly is beyond comprehension.

The court file reveals that the Writ of Summons was filed on 1^st October 2002 and that the acknowledgement of service was filed on 14 January 2003 by the solicitors who acted on the sale and purchase for the plaintiff and the defendant. The file also reveals that a statement of defence was filed by those same solicitors on 5 February 2003. It is not surprising that those solicitors did not seek to bring any action to strike out the Writ of Summons.

A notice of change of solicitors was filed on 26 May 2003 on behalf of the defendant and this application was filed with the court on 17 June 2003. The plaintiff’s submission as to delay must be rejected.

The plaintiff further submits that a statement of claim will only be struck out in plain and obvious cases that show there is no basis or reasonable basis of a claim. The plaintiff in its written submissions at page 2 and page 3 sets out the authorities that are relied on for this proposition.

I do not consider that the grounds of the allegations of fraud have been clearly pleaded and in any event the allegations require a very particular interpretation of the words of the advertisement and an interpretation for which there is no argued support.

The plaintiff then submits that it’s not the function of the court to carryout a minute and protracted examination of the pleadings and affidavits in the summary process. Whilst that is so, the authorities acknowledge that where the inherent jurisdiction of the court is being relied on, such as in this instance, it is appropriate to look to the evidence in making the required determination.

Are the issues arguable?

The issues are clearly arguable but perhaps they are not arguable as against the named defendant. The plaintiff in its affidavit annexes a copy of the relevant lease. The lease clearly indicates that the issue of encroachment was live at the time the lease was granted. Any cursory inspection of the title documents to the land being purchased by the plaintiff would have revealed the encroachment was indeed an issue. They should have put any prudent plaintiff on notice of the need for survey.

It is my opinion that the pleading is so clearly frivolous that to put it forward would be an abuse of processes to the court. The tests that the defendant submits need to be met by virtue of Young v Holloway [1895] P87 at p90 would appear to have been met.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding what I have said I consider it inappropriate for any orders to be made with respect to this application at this time.

It would appear to me that the ambit of the matter to go to trial is indeed known and it would be a waste of judicial time for any further time to be wasted on preliminary issues. It seems appropriate than Order 34 compliance be dispensed with and similarly the need for pre-trial minutes and that the matter should be proceed to trial at an early date.

The hearing of matter should proceed without the necessity of compliance with Order 34 and I propose to list the matter for hearing on a date convenient to the parties within the next month.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

AT LAUTOKA
10 MAY 2004