Timothy v Matevulu College [2001] VUSC 69; Civil Case 013 of 2001 (9 July 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JURISDICTION)

Civil Case No. 13 of 2001

BETWEEN:

JOE TIMOTHY and ISAIAH ISAAC

Applicants

AND:

MATEVULU COLLEGE

First Respondent

AND:

MATEVULU SCHOOL COUNCIL

Second Respondent

AND:

MINISTER OF EDUCATION

Third Respondent

Date: 9^th July, 2001, 8:30 a.m.

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Clerk: Ms Cynthia Thomas

Counsels: Mr Hillary Toa of Public Solicitor’s Office for the Applicants.

Mr Bill B. Tamwata of Counsel for the First & Second Respondents.

Mr Tom Joe of State Law Office for the Third Respondent.

MINUTES

Mr Toa: Case is listed for trial today but Mr Joe has indicated to us that the Third Respondent has not been served with documents.

Mr Joe: We have been disadvantaged by non-service of documents. That leaves us in difficulties so that unless we are served with all relevant documents, we cannot usefully address the matter. Mr Toa wants to proceed but we submit that since there is an appeal before the Teaching Service Commission it is only proper that that avenue is followed to the end before the Court deals with the Application. On that basis we seek Directions that the matter be adjourned until TSC has dealt with and completed the Applicants’ appeal.

Mr Tamwata: We agree with the submission by Mr Joe. We say it is proper for TSC to deal first with the appeals of the Application before the Court hears their Application for Judicial Review. In the meantime the Applicants may wish to seek employment.

Mr Toa in reply: The case does not involve TSC. Applicants are only challenging the decision of the Minister to suspend and the basis of that decision. Initially a special panel was to determine the Applicants’ case; instead the Minister was involved and he made the decision to suspend them. We submit this Court has the jurisdiction to hear their Application. We therefore object to any adjournments.

Mr Tamwata: Refers the Court to Annexure “10” of Joe Timothy’s affidavit. It is his letter of appeal to TSC against decision of the Minister. Submits it is proper for TSC to first deal with appeal.

Mr Toa: Applicants challenge the basis of the Minister’s authority to write letter. If court finds the suspension proper then TSC can go ahead and deal with the appeal. Applicants submit their suspension is not proper. If it is allowed that TSC first hears the appeal then the implication is that suspension is proper.

Court: Firstly the court cannot proceed to hear this Application today or this week. This week is allocated for a part-heard criminal trial.

Secondly it appears to me that the Applicants have only themselves to blame for putting themselves in this situation. They instigated the action by voluntarily resigning their positions. They must now realize that they have to face and live with the consequences of their own decisions and actions.

In my view this matter must be adjourned until TSC has dealt with the Applicants’ appeals. The Court will review decisions as a whole, not in isolation.

Mr Toa: The Applicants are on suspension without salaries. One of them has a child in school who no longer attends school because of this. Case should be heard within a reasonable time. We have written to the Respondents but have received no responses. As regards employment, the Applicants are aware of the opportunity provided by law to seek gainful employment whilst on suspension. These Applicants are adversely affected by this case and they would rather the Court deals with their Application before exercising that right.

Court: I am inclined to adjourned the hearing of the Application for 21 days from today. This will allow TSC to complete the appeal. If within this period TSC has not dealt with their appeals, the matter will be listed for hearing and parties will be formally notified.

Mr Bani: We accept.

Mr Joe: We are in the same position as Mr Bani.

Court: This matter is adjourned to Thursday 9^th August, 2001 at 8 O’clock in the morning. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, it may be necessary for certain amendments to be made. Counsel for the Plaintiff would look into it and take appropriate steps.

DATED at Luganville, this 9^th day of July, 2001.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge