Sea Island Paper and Stationary Ltd v Paper Products Ltd [2005] FJHC 611; HBC0001.2005 (1 July 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBC0001 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

SEA ISLAND PAPER & STATIONARY LIMITED
PLAINTIFF

AND:

PAPER PRODUCTS LIMITED
DEFENDANT

Messrs M K Sahu Khan & Co Solicitors for the Plaintiff
Messrs Young & Associates Solicitors for the Defendant

Date of Hearing: 5 May 2005
Dates of Submissions: 26 May 2005, 16 June 2005, 23 June 2005
Date of Judgment: July 2005

JUDGMENT OF FINNIGAN J

The Plaintiff by summons has sought ejectment from its premises of the Defendant pursuant to Sections 169 – 172 of the Land Transfer Act.

The application has been dealt with by written submissions and the affidavits filed by the parties. I have read the affidavits of Kanti Lal Morarji filed with the summons on 7 January 2005, Pushpa Gounder filed on 17 March 2005 and Shanti Lal Raniga filed on 31 March 2005. There was another affidavit referred to, but it is not on the file. I have had the advantage of full written submissions filed by Counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for the Defendant with a further submission for the Plaintiff in reply. A multitude of legal authorities has been cited and copies of many have been supplied, for which I think Counsel.

The affidavits and the submissions are thick with allegations of impropriety, illegality, inequitable behaviour and the like. The dispute between the parties goes a lot deeper then the claim of the Plaintiff to be entitled to the possession of its premises. There are many issues to be resolved between them, assuming that they are now so far part that they wish to litigate all these issues rather then calm down and try to settle their differences.

My earlier impression was that this matter should be before the Court as an action commenced by writ and I was not surprised when I learned that the Defendant has filed by writ an action against the Plaintiff.

Under Order 4 Rule 2 of the High Court Rules I order that the present application be consolidated with Civil Action No. 83 of 2005 so that all matters and issue can be all tried together. All issues of costs are reserved.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
July 2005