Naidu v Rarawai & Penang Cane Producers' Association [2015] FJHC 448; HBC72.2015 (12 June 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Misc Action HBC 72 of 2015

BETWEEN:

VINOD NAIDU of Vaqia, Ba
FIRST PLAINTIFF

HYDAR BEGG of Waimari, Rakiraki
SECOND PLAINTIFF

ANWAR ALI of Waimari, Rakiraki
THIRD PLAINTIFF

MOHAMMED AFZAL KHAN of Drumasi, Tavua
FOURTH PLAINTIFF

MALKIT SINGH of Vaqia, Ba
FIFTH PLAINTIFF

SAT DEO of Balevuto, Ba
SIXTH PLAINTIFF

YOGENDRA KANT of Natawa, Tavua
SEVENTH PLAINTIFF

ANAND LAL of Madhuvani, Rakiraki
EIGHTH PLAINTIFF

GAJRAJ SINGH of Banisogosogo, Rakiraki
NINTH PLAINTIFF

PRAMOD KUMAR of Lausa, Tavua
TENTH PLAINTIFF

AND:

RARAWAI & PENANG CANE PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION having its registered office at the First Floor, Sunbeam Building, Main Street, Ba
DEFENDANT

Counsel : MrAman R Singh for plaintiff
No appearance for defendant
Date of Hearing: 12 June 2015
Date of Ruling : 12 June 2015

RULING

1. This is an ex parte application filed 12 June 2015 by plaintiffs seeking inter aliaan urgent injunctive order to stop tomorrow's Extra Ordinary Meeting convened by defendant ('the application'). The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Vinod Naidu, the first plaintiff.
   
2. The application has been made under O.29.r.1 of the High Court Rules 1988, as amended ('HCR'). Where the applicant is the plaintiff and the case is one of urgency and the delay cause by proceeding in the ordinary way would entail irreparable or serious mischief such application may be made ex parte on affidavit, see HCR, O.29, r.1 (2).
   
3. The applicants are 10 Board members who have been suspended by a decision made atthe previous Annual General Assembly held on 30 March 2015. The applicants challenge validity of their suspension.
   
4. The defendant association, according to the plaintiff, is run by four minority Board Members. An Extra Ordinary Meeting of the members of the defendant was scheduled previously to be held on 16 May 2015. That meeting was not held because of the injunction obtained by the plaintiffs to stop that meeting. That injunctive order was subsequently dissolved by the court following inter partes hearing.
   
5. Subsequently, an Extra Ordinary Meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow, 13/6/15. The plaintiff made an application ex parte before Justice Sapuvida seeking injunctive orders to stop the tomorrow's meeting. That application was heard and refused this morning by Justice Sapuvida.
   
6. The current application before me is the second application filed this afternoon seeking the same orders that were sought before Justice Sapuvida in the morning.
   
7. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the current application is a fresh application. In my view, the current application is not a fresh application as it seeks the selfsame relief that was sought before Justice Sapuvida. The application does not bring out any change of circumstances between the morning and the afternoon.
   
8. I am not inclined to accept the argument advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs that it would be dangerous to allow to hold tomorrow's meetings.
   
9. I am of the view that Extra Ordinary Meeting will not prejudice the Plaintiffs' pending case or it will not affect their rights in any way.
   
10. I am not satisfied that I should issue an injunction to stop tomorrow's meeting. I accordingly decline to issue the ex parte injunction sought in the ex parte notice of motion filed in the afternoon of 12 June 2015.
    

M H Mohamed Ajmeer
JUDGE

At Lautoka
12.6.15