Panketo v Natuman - Application to Stay [2005] VUSC 131; CC 045 2002 (24 November 2005)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)

CIVIL CASE No. 45 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

JOSHUA PANKETO
Petitioner

AND:

HON. JOE NATUMAN,
Minister of Internal Affairs in charge of Police and Immigration
First Respondent

AND:

THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
Mr. Api Jack Marikempo, Police Head Quarter
Second Respondent

AND:

THE PRINCIPAL IMMIGRATION OFFICER,
Mr. Leslie Garae, Immigration Department, Port-Vila, Vanuatu
Third Respondent

Mrs Marie Noelle Ferrieux Patterson for the Applicant
Mr Kiel Loughman for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

On 24 November 2005 at 8.00PM, an Application to stay the Enforcement of the Court Orders issued by the Court on 7 November 2002 was heard. The Applicant by counsel filed two sworn statements in support of the application.

I hear Mrs Patterson and Mr Loughman. The application to stay the Enforcement of the Judgment is filed under rule 14.40 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2002.

Rule 14.40(1) reads:-

“A person again whom an enforcement order is made may apply to the Court for an Order suspending the enforcement of the Order.”

On 7 November 2002, the Supreme Court issued the following Orders:

“1. THAT, the Petitioner’s claim that he be refunded properly with his money and possessions which are under the care and control of the police is granted partly only as follows:

(a) the Petitioner cannot be refunded properly with his moneys and possessions which are under the care and custody of police as they were lost and there is no assessment of properties other than monies were made;

(b) however, the Petitioner shall be compensated for the unjust deprivation of his properties and monies by the Respondents and the compensation is determined in the following way:

• (i) the Respondents shall pay to the Petitioner an amount of 300,000 VT; and
  
• (ii) the Respondents shall pay the Petitioner’s air ticket to Solomon Islands.
  

2. THAT, the Petitioner shall not be deported until he was paid 300,000 Vatu and his airline ticket is purchased as ordered in 1(b)(ii).
   
3. THAT, the claim that the Petitioner chooses the country of deportation is refused.
   

4. THAT, there is no order as to costs.”

The Orders were issued in favour of the Petitioner/Applicant against the Respondent [Minister of Internal Affairs, Police Commissioner and Principal Immigration Officer].

The Respondents are the ones to comply with the Orders of the Court and if there are good reasons to stay the Orders, they can apply to stay the Enforcement of the said Judgment/Orders under Rule 14.40(1) of the Civil Rules.

It is surprising to note that in the present application, the Petitioner/Applicant wish by counsel to stay the Enforcement of the Orders of the Court made against the Respondents.

The Applicant cannot do that as by doing so, he will interfere with the lawful enforcement of the Court Orders by the Respondents.

Further at the time of the application, the Court is informed that the Respondents have fully and already complied with the Court Orders of 7 November 2002 i.e. they paid 300,000VT to the Petitioner/Applicant, and they paid him his ticket.

It appears that there is a misapprehension by the counsel of the Applicant, Mrs Patterson, about the way and the sort of right action to take.

This application cannot succeed and is dismissed. It is dismissed.

DATED at Port-Vila this 24^th day of November 2005

BY THE COURT

Vincent LUNABEK
Chief Justice