Tamata v Diocese of Vanuatu [2005] VUSC 134; CC 016 2003 (30 November 2005)

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

Civil Case No. 16 of 2003

BETWEEN:

FRED TAMATA
Claimant

AND:

DIOCESE OF VANUATU
Defendant

Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak
Mrs Anita Vinabit – Clerk

Mr Willie J. Kapalu for the Claimant
Mr Saling Stephens for the Defendant

30th November 2005

JUDGMENT

The claim of the Claimant has been partly settled. The only sum in issue was the VT105,000 claimed as unpaid salaries for the periods of January, February and March 1995 at VT15,000 and April to June 2001 at VT30,000 per month.

By Order dated 24^th October 2005 it was ordered at paragraph 2 that the Defendant verify the sum of VT105,000 with Mr Kapalu within 14 days. A return date was fixed for 4^th November 2005.

On 4^th November 2005 Mr Stephens produced records showing payments made by the Church Defendant in April, May, and June 2001 showing that VT100,000 were paid each month to workers (including the Claimant) for three months.

Mr Kapalu sought an adjournment to take appropriate instructions from his client, and the Court fixed a return date for today.

Mr Kapalu simply made submissions that the only remaining issue was the claim for the sum of VT15,000 at VT5,000 each for the months of January, February and March 1995. He relied on the of Case of Municipality of Luganville v. Wendy Garu Civil Appeal Case No. 8 of 1999 as his authority for the proposition that a claim for past salary was clearly a debt or liquidated demand and that his client was entitled to VT15,000 as owing to him by the Defendant.

Mr Stephens argued against that submission. He submitted that the claim for 1995 unpaid salaries were time-barred. He submitted that this part of the claim should be struck out with costs.

I have considered those arguments and submissions and find as follows:-

(1) The sum of VT15,000 claimed by the Claimant is a debt.

(2) However, I find that as the debt was part of his remuneration and that he did not claim for them within the period specified under section 21 of the Employment Act [CAP. 160].

(3) Therefore the Court agrees with Mr Stephens that that part of the claim is time-barred and should be struck out.

Upon the above findings the Court makes the following Orders:-

(1) The Claimant’s claims for the total sum of VT15,000 at VT5,000 per month of January, February and March 1995 be and are hereby struck out.

(2) There be no order as to costs. Each party will pay their own costs.

DATED at Luganville this 5^th day of December, 2005.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge