Radrodro v The Attorney General of Fiji [2026] FJHC 172; HBC145.2021 (24 March 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
WESTERN DIVISION
AT LAUTOKA

Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2021

BETWEEN:

PAULA MALO RADRODRO of Lot 45 VM Pillay Road, House No. 101, Lautoka.

APPELLANT

AND:
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF FIJI
RESPONDENT

Appearances : Appellant in Person

Mr. Bauleka for the Respondent

Date of Hearing : 28 September 2023 and 06 May 2024

Date of Ruling : 24 March 2026

R U L I N G

1. On 19 July 2021, Mr. Paula Malo Radrodro filed a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.
   
2. He seeks judgement in the sum of seven billion dollars (FJD $7,000,000,000) from the Attorney-General.
   
3. The foundation for the above sum remains obscure.
   
4. Radrodro also advances a claim for general damages. This appears to be directed to an alleged loss of opportunity in economic participation which he claims to have suffered. He attributes these losses to what he describes as the failure of the Office of the Solicitor-General to facilitate his attempts to patent a novel scientific discovery of his.
   
5. The scientific discovery at the center of Radrodro’s claim concerns a purported cure for Covid-19 which he asserts to have developed.
6. He alleges that the Attorney-General’s Office failed to provide a letter of support and other assistance, without which he was not enable to pursue the necessary steps to register a patent over his claimed discovery.
   
7. As a result, the claimed discovery was left unpatented and unprotected, which, as he alleges, led to its misappropriation.
   
8. He does not identify the perpetrator. However, at paragraph 12 of his claim, he pleads that the discovery:
   

“...is now being used for COVID-19 vaccination and medication because there is nothing else in the world that has the cure except that which is in my body that was the result of my experiments”

9. At paragraph 17, he pleads that:
   

“..I have set the claim at $7 billion of loss by taking into account the total population of the world and losses incurred and general damages due to the defendant’s failure pursuant to section 12 of the Patent Act....

10. On 30 September 2021, the Office of the Attorney-General filed a Summons to Strike Out pursuant to Order 18 Rule 18 (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the High Court Rules 1988.
    
11. On 19 May 2023, the Learned Master did strike out the claim. Radrodro then filed a Notice of Appeal and Grounds of Appeal on 23 June 2023.
    
12. Radrodro then tried to appeal the decision on the allegation that Master was “biased and politically motivated” (as he states in his submissions filed on 30 April 2024).
    
13. This appeal was then placed before me.
    
14. On 23 October 2023, he filed a Notice of Motion to seek that I recuse myself:
    

“because of judicial bullying, conflict of interest, estoppel by judgement and equitable estoppel”.

15. I have read the submissions filed by the Office of the Attorney-General and considered the case authorities relied on. Clearly, Radrodro’s view of my alleged biasness appears to be premised on the fact that I had dealt with previous claims filed by him in the following cases (as he concedes to in his Submissions filed on 30 April 2024):
    

Radrodro v Commissioner of Police [2022] FJHC 238; HBJ05.2021 (17 May 2022)	I dismissed Radrodro’s action against Police and the District Medical Officer. He had sought an Order to direct Police to conduct certain disciplinary investigations against certain officers for unprofessional conduct. He suspected that the District Medical Officer had contemplated taking samples of his blood, which possesses certain special qualities, in order to sell abroad for the development of a cure for COVID-19.
Radrodro v Fiji Times Ltd [2019] FJHC 732; HBM001.2018 (25 July 2019)	He claimed to have found a cure for cancer which entails blood transfusion. He had sought Constitutional Redress against Fiji Times and Fiji Sun’s refusal to publish an advertisement which he had tried to place before the two newspapers. The advertisement was a pre-requisite for the patenting of his discovery. I dismissed his application.
Radrodro v Fiji Times Ltd [2020] FJCA 132; ABU0081.2019 (27 July 2020)	The Fiji Court of Appeal dismissed Radrodro’s appeal against my ruling above.
Radrodro v Fiji Commissioner of Police [2012] FJHC 5; Civil Action 151.2011 (17 January 2012)	Where I struck out his claim against the Police as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. He had claimed that his house was broken into and burgled on several occasions between 2005 to 2011. Despite repeated complaints to the Police, no investigation has been carried out. He had sued Police for breaching its duty to investigate. As I noted in paragraph 8 of the Ruling: The thrust of his allegations is that – because of police inaction and lack of response to his complaints, thieves have repeatedly broken into his house and stolen his inventions and scientific discoveries. These inventions and scientific discoveries are now emerging from various parts of the World in the field of aircraft technology, medicine, music compositions, submarine technology, to name a few. He also claims to have stumbled upon some important discoveries about the speed of light which challenges some of Albert Einstein’s theories. Radrodro appealed that decision all the way to the Court of Appeal but was not successful all the way (see Radrodro v Commissioner of Police [2016] FJCA 21; ABU036.2014 (26 February 2016)

16. Other judicial officers in Lautoka have dealt with various processes filed by Radrodro. If I were to recuse myself in the present claim, those Judges would also have to recuse themselves if the application were to be placed before any of them.
    

See Radrodro v Commissioner of Police [2020] FJHC 674; HBJ01.2020 (21 August 2020) – where Mr. Justice Ajmeer had refused Radrodro’s application seeking leave for judicial review of a Police decision of 10 February 2019 to close a file on Radrodro’s complaint that his “invention of immunization for mosquito” was stolen.

See also Radrodro v Chief Registrar [2022] FJHC 592; HBJ9.2020 (9 September 2022) and Radrodro v The Chief Registrar [2023] FJHC 329; HBJ9.2020 (27 April 2023) where both his applications were struck out or dismissed.

17. I do not consider it necessary that I should recuse myself. While I would have no objection to doing so, such a course would;
    
    • (i) merely transfer the burden to another judicial officer, and
    • (ii) simply encourage Radrodro’s attempt at forum shopping.
      
18. I now turn to the appeal proper. The allegation is that the Learned Master was biased and politically motivated. At the hearing on 28 September 2023, Mr. Radrodro said that the Master had failed to consider that the Attorney-General’s breach of duty.
    
19. There is a notable disconnect between “biased and politically motivated” and “failing to consider the alleged breach of duty”.
    
20. The Learned Master clearly did. He considered section 12 of the Patents Act which requires the Attorney-General to issue a provisional certificate to an applicant of the invention is prima facie entitled to protection.
    
21. At paragraphs 07 and 08 of his Ruling, the Master said:
    
    7. The plaintiff’s claim is that, he invented the cure for Covid 19. His invention is his blood and his family members’ blood. The plaintiff claimed in his statement of claim that, his immunization is 100 years effective as opposed to Covid 19 vaccines which are effective for only few months. The plaintiff claims that, he was able to supply his blood to the whole world. However, the due to the failure of the defendant, his invention was stolen and he could not earn money by selling his invention.
       
    8. The plaintiff’s claim on the face of it, is unsustainable and does not make any sense. No one invents his own blood and it is not falling under the definition for term invention. The section 2 of the Patents Act (old Act) defines “invention” to mean any manner of new manufacture and every new process of manufacture and every new method of application of known process and improvements in any known process.
       
22. In my view, the Master was correct in his analysis. The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the Defendant which I summarily assess at $500 (five hundred dollars only).
    

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

Anare Tuilevuka

JUDGE

24 March 2026