Khan v Puma Olympians, ex parte Kumar [2004] FJHC 438; HBJ0001.2004L (27 July 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBJ0001 OF 2004L

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED SHAMSUDIN SAHU KHAN
AND BOB KUMAR of Fiji Football Association
Respondents

AND:

PUMA OLYMPIANS
Interested Party

EX-PARTE:

RISHI KUMAR AND PRAVIN BALA
of Ba Football Association
Applicants

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr. A.K. Narayan
Counsel for the Respondents: Dr. M.S. Sahu Khan
Counsel for the Interested Party: Ms. S. Sahu Khan for Mr. G.P. Shankar

Date of Hearing & Ruling: 27 July 2004

RULING

This matter comes before the court by way of a Summons filed on the 18^th of June 2004 on behalf of the plaintiff. That Summons followed the judgment of the court dated 11 June 2004 with respect to these proceedings.

The proceedings were commenced by way of judicial review and subsequently amended to incorporate alternate remedies.

The judgment of the court of the 11^th June 2004 dealt only with the application for leave for judicial review and left open the alternate remedies.

The respondent submits that Order 53 Rule 9(5) applies to an application for judicial review and does not apply to an application for leave to apply for judicial review and that accordingly the applicant’s amended application should be struck out.

It is clear that the word used in Order 53 Rule 9(5) refer only to “an application for judicial review” but it might well be considered a reasonable interpretation of the Rule that it is intended to apply not only to applications for judicial review but also to applications or leave to apply for judicial review.

In the circumstances, however, it seems that the prudent course to take is to adjourn the present proceedings to enable the applicant to file fresh proceedings seeking the alternate relief sought in the amended application for leave for judicial review.

Counsel for the respondent indicates that no undertaking on behalf of the respondent would be given not to take any action against the applicant in the interim period and in these circumstances, it seems appropriate that the respondent be restrained in that regard as to do otherwise would leave the ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the court pyrrhic.

Accordingly, I propose to adjourn these proceedings for a period of fourteen (14) days and in the interim, restrain the respondent from taking action against the applicant.

The Orders of the Court will be: -

1. Proceedings adjourned to 9.00am on the 9^th August 2004;

2. The respondents be restrained from taking any disciplinary action or proceeding further with any disciplinary proceedings already initiated against Rishi Ram f/n Nitya Nand and Pravin Bala f/n Venkat Ram of Yalalevu, Ba and Varadoli, Ba or the Ba Football Association or any other officials or players of the Ba Football Association arising out of the subject matter of the protest by the Puma Olympians against Ba Football Association until 9^th August 2004.
   

JOHN CONNORS

JUDGE

AT LAUTOKA

27 JULY 2004