Gaua v Boe [1998] VUSC 31; Civil Appeal Case 014 of 1997 (1 August 1998)

<

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

HELD AT LUGANVILLE/SANTO

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Appeal Case No.14 of 1997

BETWEEN:

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> ABRAHAA

Appellant

/span>

SAKIAS BOE

Respondent

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A Saksak

Mr William Lory - Clerk

Counsel: Mr Saling Stephens - For the Appellant

ass="MsoNormal" style="text"text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The Respondent appears in person unrepresented.

JUDGEMENT

lass="MsoNormal" style="mar="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> This is an apagainst the judgement of Magistrate Steve Bani of 20th August 1997 in Civil Case No.2 No.20 of 1997.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The Appellantms that the Magistrate was wrong in fact and in law in awarding judgement in his favo favour for the sum of vt298,939 when the correct amount claimed was vt544,428. He asks that the judgement be varied to reflect the correct amount of debt due from the Respondent.

The appeal is dealt with on record. Mr Stephens produced a bundle of documents deemed aeal Book which contaiontains the judgement appealed against and documents relating to Civil Case No.20 of 1997 as between the Appellant as Plaintiff and the Respondent as Defendant.

I note from the Appellant's statement of claim d19th May, 1997 in relation to Civil case No.20 of 199 1997 that the Appellant makes reference to Civil Case No.159 of 1995. (See paragraphs 1,4,5 & 6). If that case had any relevance to this appeal there were no documents in relation thereto before the court to assist me. If anything is confusing to this court and to the Respondent who appears unrepresented, it is the multiplicity of cases that the Appellant has slammed upon this Defendant/Respondent. The result is simply that whilst he acknowledges and accepts the sum in the judgement being vt298,939 he does not accept the sum vt544,428.

All the statement of accounts show the outstanding debt or sum as vt298.939. The final bank statement dated 18th April 1997 shows clearly the sum of vt298,939. Regardless that the Appellants summons claims for the sum of vt544,428 which included costs, with all the relevant documents before the Learned Magistrate it is in my judgement clear that the Learned was satisfied, as I am, that the only sum proved owing is the sum of vt298,939 and not vt544.428.

For treasons I see no reason why this Court should interfere with the judgement of the Coue Court below. If the Appellant reasonably and legitimately has a further claim against the Respondent, he has the means to institute fresh proceedings about that claim in Court where it will be subject to proof in a simple manner which will be clear to the Defendant.

I accordingly dismiss the Appellant's appeal with no order as to costs.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Dated at Luganville this ............day of August, 1998.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A SAKSAK

Judge of the Supreme Court