Kanalagi v Permanent Secretary for Education [2026] FJHC 16; HBJ02.2025 (21 January 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Judicial Review No. HBJ 02 of 2025

IN THE MATTER of an application by JONE VUNIDOI KANALAGI and for a Judicial Review under Order 53 of the High Court Rules 1988.
AND
IN THE MATTER of Decision purported to be made by PERMANENT SECRETARY EDUCATION and/or MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, and/or MINISTRY OF EDUCATION on 9 January, 2025.

BETWEEN : JONE VUNIDOI KANALAGI.
APPLICANT

AND : PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
AND : MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
AND : MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
FIRST - THIRD RESPONDENTS

AND : ATTORNEY-GENERAL CHAMBERS.
FOURTH RESPONDENT

BEFORE : Hon. Justice Vishwa Datt Sharma

COUNSEL: Mr. Karunaratne J. o/i of Law Naivalu for the Applicant

Mr. Chand K. with Mr. Ali T. for the Respondents

DATE OF RULING: 21^st January, 2026

RULING

(Summons for Extension of Time and Summons to File Supplementary Affidavit)

1. Introduction
   

1. On 5^th March 2025 the Applicant filed a Summons pursuant to Order 53 rule 3 of the High Court Rules 1988 and sought for the following orders:
   1. An Order that leave be granted to the Applicant to apply for Judicial Review of the 22^nd November 2024 Decision by Respondent(s) themselves, their Servants and/or in purporting to

(i) the swap-transfer of Jone Vunidoi Kanalagi from Principal Ra High School (PRHS) to be Principal Thomas Baker High School (PTBHS) with effect from 27^th January 2025.

(ii) Issue and approve the swap-transfer of the Applicant’s successor at Principal Ra High School (PRHS), Amele Nailevu from Principal Thomas Baker High School (PTBHS) to be Principal Ra High School (PRHS) with effect from 27 January, 2025.

(iii) vary and/or terminate the Applicant’s confirmed employment at Principal Ra High School without any initiation or consultation between the two post holders.

(iv) swap-transfer the Applicant in breach of Sections 20(1) and 271(7) of the 2013 Constitution.

2. An Order for stay of the above swap-transfer of the Applicant from Principal Ra High School (PRHS) to Principal Thomas Baker High School (PTBHS) and swap-transfer of Amele Nailevu from Principal Thomas Baker High School (PTBHS) to Principal Ra High School (PRHS) effective 27 January, 2025 and to maintain the status quo to pre-27 January 2025 until further orders of this Honourable Court.
   

2. Together with the Summons, an Applicant also filed an application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 rule 3 (2) of the High Court Rules 1988.
   
3. The application was assigned a returnable date of 24^th April 2025. Service of the application was not effected onto the Respondents. The Applicant sought further time for mention till 5^th or 6^th June 2025.
   
4. However, the Court made directions for:
   • the service of the application,
   • 28 days from service of the substantive application, the Respondents to file and serve the affidavits,
   • any Reply, 14 days thereafter,
   • the matter was adjourned to 4^th June on the returnable date on 4^th June 2025.
     
5. However, on 29^th May 2025, the Applicant filed two (2) further Interlocutory applications:

(i) Summons for Extension of Time (pursuant to Order 3 rule 4(1) of the High Court Rules 1988:

• For Leave be granted for Court to extend time for a fresh timetable for filing of Responses and a new mention date to be given,
• Any other orders that the Honourable Court may deem just and equitable in all of the circumstances,
• That there be costs in the cause, and
  

(ii) Summons to file supplementary Affidavit Verifying Facts:

• That Leave be granted for Court to accept a Supplementary Affidavit Verifying Facts to be fired by the Applicant,
• Any other orders that the Honourable Court may deem just and equitable in all the circumstances, and
• There be costs in cause.
  

The application to file supplementary affidavit was made pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

6. It is noted that HBJ 1/2025 by Savenaca Muamua Bukadrou and HBJ 03/2025 by Biu Colati are somewhat similar in nature.
   
7. Both parties to the proceedings furnished Court with written Submissions and argued that two (02) impending Interlocutory application for ‘Extension of time’ and filing of supplementary affidavit.
   

Determination

8. Application for Judicial Review are governed by Order 53 of the High Court Rules, 1988.
   
9. No application for Judicial Review shall be made unless the Leave of the Court has been obtained in accordance with the Rule specified in Order 53 Rule 3 (O.53, r3).
   
10. In all the three (3) cases filed herein HBJ 01 of 2025, HBJ No. 02 of 2025 and HBJ 03 of 2025 the Applicants have commenced their applications seeking for Judicial Review by filing:
    1. A summons,
    2. An application for leave to apply for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 rule 3(2) of High Court Rules 1988, and
    100. An affidavit Verifying facts.
         
11. Order 53 Rule 5 (O.53, R5) sets out the mode of applying the Judicial Review. Order 53 rule 5(1) states:

‘When leave has been granted to make an application for Judicial Review, the application shall be made either by Originating Motion or Originating Summons.

12. This Court had in all the three (03) Judicial Review cases assigned on the 24^th April 2025 as a returnable date for the hearing of the Leave to Apply for Judicial Review applications.
    
13. However, on the returnable date of the 24^th April 2025, Applicant’s counsel sought time to serve the ‘Leave application’ onto the Respondents and the Court accordingly granted and acceded to the request and made certain directions for service and scheduled the cases to 4^th June 2025.
    
14. However, it was noted that Applicant’s had filed two (2) Interlocutory application for ‘Extension of Time for a fresh timetable’ and ‘Summons to file supplementary affidavit verifying facts’ on 29^th May 2025.
    
15. Both applications were assigned with the returnable of 4^th June 2025 together with the scheduled date for ‘Leave application’.
    
16. The Court finally heard the two (2) Interlocutory applications for Extension of Time and Summons to file Supplementary Affidavit Verifying Facts on 08^th October 2025 and reserved the delivery of its Decision at a later date.
    
17. After hearing both Counsels on their own and written submission, I find that the two (2) Interlocutory applications for ‘Extension of Time’ and ‘supplementary affidavit filing’, needed to be filed after the hearing and granting of the ‘Leave application’ for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 Rule 5 (O.53, R5) of the High Court Rules 1988. The two (2) interlocutory applications have been filed prematurely.
    
18. Since the Applicants have failed to follow and adhere to the applicable set out Rules as per Order 53 of the High Court Rules 1988, and that this Court had proceeded to hear both Interlocutory application ahead of the ‘Leave application for Judicial Review’, I have no alternative but proceed to dismiss both Interlocutory applications seeking for:
    • Extension of Time for a fresh timetable, and
    • Summons to file supplementary affidavit verifying facts accordingly.
      
19. This Court will now assign a returnable hearing date on the ‘Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(2) of High Court Rules 1988.
    

Costs

20. There will be no order as to costs at the discretion of this Court.
    

Orders

(i) Applicant’s Summons for ‘Extension of Time’ and ‘Summons to file supplementary affidavit verifying facts’ are accordingly dismissed in its entirety.

(ii) There will be no order as to costs at the discretion of this Court.

(iii) Hearing date to be assigned on impending ‘Leave to apply for Judicial Review.’

Dated at Suva this 21^st day of January ,2026

...................................................

VISHWA DATT SHARMA

PUISNE JUDGE

CC: Law Naivalu, Lautoka

Office of the Attorney General, Suva