Fiji Development Bank v Tulele [2005] FJHC 112; HBC0099j.1999s (16 May 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99 OF 1999

Between:

FIJI DEVELOPMENT BANK
Plaintiff

and

ERONI TULELE, JIUTATIA KUBUABOLA,
and ANARE LEWENIQILA
Defendants

Mr. D. Sharma and Ms. I. Fatiaki for Plaintiff
No appearance of Mr. I. Fa, counsel for Defendants

JUDGMENT

I have considered the evidence adduced in this case.

I am satisfied that the amount claimed in the Writ of Summons is due and owing by the defendants who are the guarantors for the Company Advance Resources Limited together with interest on the balance sum as claimed.

The Company was wound up but the plaintiff exercised its powers under the Bill of Sale, the amount recovered was not sufficient to clear the debt owing to the plaintiff. The defendants were required to pay the balance sum as per demand notices sent to them. They did not pay the debt hence Writ of Summons herein was issued. The case was set down for hearing for today and tomorrow 17th May.

Today before the hearing commenced both counsel appeared before me in Chambers when Ms Koroi upon instructions from Mr. I. Fa applied to Court to withdraw as solicitors for the defendants. The reason was that the defendants have not paid their fees and they have not been in communication with the solicitor.

The application to withdraw was refused and counsel were told that the case will be heard this morning as soon as a Court is made available. I must say that the conduct of Ms Koroi as counsel was unbecoming of a practitioner appearing before a Court of law. Her manner bordered on contempt.

Be that as it may, Ms. Koroi should have been present to represent her clients, if she is permitted to appear on her own. Here again her absence is indicative of disrespect to Court. Her employer Mr. I. Fa should look into the situation that has arisen and take appropriate measure to explain behaviour of counsel employed by him so that there is no recurrence of this type of incident whether in Chambers or in Court. I think the Fiji Law Society should also note this kind of misconduct on the part of its member or members and deal with such case as they deem fit.

Having said all that, I am satisfied with the plaintiff’s claim and enter judgment as claimed in the sum of $212,999.15 together with interest accruing at the rate of 8% per annum up to $500,000 and 13.5% per annum on the balance as from 1st February 1999 until full payment.

I award costs against the defendants which is to be taxed unless agreed.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
16 May 2005