Autoworld Trading (Fiji) Ltd v Sili [2014] FJMC 34; Civil Action 39.2013 (26 February 2014)

IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
IN THE CENTRAL DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No: 39 of 2013

Autoworld Trading (Fiji) Limited
Plaintiff

v

Solomone Sili
Defendant

For Plaintiff : MC Lawyers
For Defendant : In Person

Ruling

Introduction

In this matter the Plaintiff had filed a Notice of Motion seeking that action which was struck out on 22nd July 2013 be restored to cause list and a hearing date be assigned.

The Plaintiff's had on 11th July 2013 filed a Motion and Affidavit seeking orders (1.) that the Defendant deliver Vehicle Registration # FN784/LT3174 to the Plaintiff or (2). If the Defendant refuses to comply with the Order (1) the Plaintiff with the assistance of Police to cease the Vehicle Registration # FN784/LT3174, (3). Any other orders by the Court in the circumstances of the case.

Due to non appearance of the Plaintiff the Motion was dismissed on 22nd July 2013. The Defendant filed a reply and the Plaintiff's have filed a response to that reply.

Analysis

This Court has noted that due to non-appearance of the Plaintiff the Motion was dismissed. The substantive matter is pending. The subject in dispute is a motor vehicle and certain bill of sale/s is in question. The Court notes from the reason advanced by the Plaintiff that the Motion was not in the folder in the Registry and for that reason they failed to appear in Court.

This Court notes from the supporting affidavit that the Plaintiff submitted the motion on 10th July 2013 and the Court Registry accepted it as filed on 11th July 2013, which is 11 days before the actual hearing of the motion. The Plaintiffs had ample time and opportunity to find out what happened to the document and it was their responsibility to check and find out if the document was in the folder. The reason so advanced is not acceptable. The onus was on the Plaintiff to check and find out what happened to the papers (motion) it filed in Court. The supporting affidavit so filed is silently blaming the Court Registry, while not accepting that the law clerks did not regularly check and follow up on the document that was lodged and in process.

In any event, while the subject matter in question is a motor vehicle and the substantive Writ has not been dealt with this Court will seek that the Writ be heard as the pleadings are in order.

In the meanwhile this Court will seek that the Defendant shall not tamper, transfer; or deal with the subject motor vehicle in any manner whatsoever.

This Court for the above-mentioned reasons orders as follows:

(a) This Court will dismiss this motion and not restore the earlier motion but set an early Hearing for the Writ dealing with the substantive matter.

(b) No party (in Particular, the Defendant) shall tamper with, transfer, or deal with the subject motor vehicle in any manner whatsoever.

(c) No order as to costs.

Chaitanya Lakshman
Resident Magistrate

26th February 2014