Ajuju v Lulu [2010] VUSC 68; Civil Case 06 of 2010 (1 June 2010)

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

Civil Case No. 06 of 2010

BETWEEN:

CHIEF AJUJU
as agent for Chief Samuel and Family
Claimant

AND:

TAEMOLI LULU
First Defendant

AND:

BENUEL TABI
Second Defendant

AND:

REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
Third Defendant

Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Mr Henzler Vira for the Claimant
The First Defendant in person
No appearance by Second Defendant
Mr Fredrick Gilu for Third Defendant

REASONS

1. Mr Vira initially informed Court the Claimants had intentions to discontinue their claims against the Second and Third Defendants.
   
2. The First Defendant objected to that course while Mr Gilu expressed the opinion that it was a proper course in view of the fact that no cause of action was disclosed against the Third Defendant, and in view of the defence filed on 9th March 2010. Counsel then orally applied to have the proceeding struck out.
   
3. The First Defendant raised the issue of standing of Chief Ajuju as the agent for the Claimants.
   
4. The Court noted the issue of standing and enquired as to why the families purported to be represented by Chief Ajuju did not make any sworn statement in support of their claims.
   
5. Mr Gilu raised the issue of wrong parties being named and submitted the correct parties would have been the appropriate Lands Tribunal whose decision is being challenged.
   
6. With all those submissions, the Court expressed its clear view that on the face of the case as it stands –
   
   • (a) Chief Ajuju had no standing;
     
   • (b) Wrong persons or parties were being sued here.
     
   • (c) There is no case of action disclosed against the Third Defendant.
     
   • (d) On the basis of the above, the claim of the Claimant was misconceived and should be struck out as early as possible to minimize costs to all parties.
     
7. After hearing all these views, Mr Vira then informed the Court that the best option was to discontinue the proceeding wholly against all the three defendants. Counsel conceded the request for costs by First and Third Defendants.
   
8. Those are the reasons for the orders of the Court issued separately today
   

DATED at Luganville this 1st day of June 2010.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge