Saunaka Land Purchase Cooperative Ltd v Mohammed [2010] FJHC 416; HBC157.2010 (12 August 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No HBC 157 of 2010

BETWEEN:

SAUNAKA LAND PURCHASE COOPERATIVE LIMITED
a duly incorporate entity governed under the Cooperative Societies Act Cap 250
Plaintiff

AND:

AFIZ MOHAMMED
(father's name not known to the Plaintiff)
of P.O.Box 311, Nadi Accountant.
1st Defendant

RAKESH KUMAR, VIDYA WATI, KRISHNA MURTHI,
AVINESH VERMA, BENEDATTE SHANKARAN, MOREEN
all of Saunaka, Nadi
2nd Defendant

THE DIRECTOR/REGISTRAR
of Cooperatives and Small Business, P.O Box 2356 Government Building Suva.
3rd Defendant

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
4th Defendant

ORDER OF THE COURT

Mr. Maopa is requested by Court to submit the resolutions and proof as to who are the members of the Board of the Plaintiff. Mr. Maopa concedes that only the list of members have been attached and there are no proof of appointment or election of the office bearers and "officials of the Plaintiff" referred to in the injunction No.3 in the Ex parte Motion. Under the circumstances as Mr. Maopa submits and as it appears that the assets and the cash in the Bank of the Plaintiff needs to be preserved and as the "office bearers" and the "officers of the Plaintiffs" are not clearly set out, if an injunction is to issue it will have to restrain all members of the Plaintiff, including the 2nd Defendants and the said to be Secretary, Mr. Anil Nandan as well from disposing or dealing with the assets and the cash at the Bank of the Plaintiff.

The balance of convenience, is in favour of the Plaintiff, in that, due to the dispute it is the assets of the plaintiff that is at stake. Even the undertaking for damages given too is on the Plaintiff's assets and not that of any members or of Mr. Anil Nandan as pointed out to Mr. Maopa and conceded by him. Mr. Maopa moves that as such he is not seeking the injunctions as sought but will be satisfied with an injunction restraining all members including the 2nd Defendants, and also the 1st Defendant who is not yet a member. As the 3rd Defendant has a function under the Co-operative Act this Court does not see sufficient reason to restrain the 3rd Defendant.

Therefore on a balance of convenience and considering Order 29 Rule 2 as well to preserve the assets of the Plaintiff, this Court considers and issues,

(a) Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, 2nd Defendant and all members of the Plaintiff including the said Anil Nandan from disposing and/or in any way dealing with the assets of the Plaintiff and the cash at the Bank of the Plaintiff for a period of 7 days from today subject to the undertaking for damage of the Plaintiff, and, till further order of Court.

(b) That the said injunction be served on all the parties and be returned on the 19th of August 2010 10am.(The papers served on the parties to direct that they are to be before Court on 19/August/2010 10Am).

(c) Other relief's sought in the Ex parte Motion will be considered on the 19/August/2010.

Sgd
Y I Fernando
JUDGE

At Lautoka
12 August 2010