Charan v Shah [1995] FijiLawRp 12; [1995] 41 FLR 65 (8 March 1995)

[1995] 41 FLR 65

COURT OF APPEAL OF FIJI

Civil Jurisdiction

SURESH CHARAN

v

S.M. SHAH & OTHERS

Kapi, Thompson. Hillyer JJ.A

8 March 1995

Practice (Civil) - Judicial Review - power to grant leave - whether refusal of leave by High Court final or interlocutory.

The High Court refused leave to move for Judicial Review. The appellant sought to review the application in the Court of Appeal. HELD: (1) The Court of Appeal has no power to grant leave. (2) A refusal of leave by the High Court is an interlocutory order.

Case cited:

White v Brunton [1984] QB 570

Appeal against refusal of leave by the High Court to move for Judicial Review

Appellant in person
D. Singh for the 1st and 3rd Respondents
Mrs. T. Jayatilleke for the 2nd Respondent

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

In 1984 the applicants commenced proceedings in the court which was then the Supreme Court and which is now the High Court against the second respondent in respect of goods allegedly wrongfully distrained by bailiffs acting for the second respondent. In 1990 the applicants commenced proceedings in the Magistrates' Court in Suva in respect of some of those goods, that is to say the perishable goods. In June 1994 the first respondent, who was the Magistrate presiding at a hearing of those proceedings in the Magistrates' Court, discovered that the subject matter of those proceedings was included in the subject matter of proceedings commenced in the Supreme Court in 1984 in which the trial was then proceeding. On the basis that it was an abuse of the processes of the Court to pursue the same claim contemporaneously in two different courts, the first respondent struck out the applicants' claim.

Subsequently, but in consequence of his having done that, he ordered the applicants to pay the second respondent its costs incurred in the proceedings up to that date and also to repay to the second respondent an amount which the second respondent had paid to the applicants pursuant to an order for the payment of costs in respect of interlocutory matters in the proceedings. The second respondent then obtained a judgment debtor summons in order to enforce the payment of that money. On 17 July 1994 the applicants applied to the High Court by ex parte summons for orders inter alia