Mataafa v Ministry of Revenue [2017] WSDC 21 (22 September 2017)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
Mataafa v Ministry of Revenue [2017] WSDC 21

Case name:	Mataafa v Ministry of Revenue
Citation:	[2017] WSDC 21
Decision date:	22 September 2017
Parties:	FAA’IU MATAAFA of Saleapaga Samoa and MINISTRY OF REVENUE of Apia Samoa
Hearing date(s):
File number(s):
Jurisdiction:	CIVIL
Place of delivery:	District Court of Samoa, Mulinuu
Judge(s):	Judge Alalatoa Rosella Viane Papalii
On appeal from:
Order:	I award the full costs sought by MOR against the Plaintiff of $1710.00 who is hereby ordered to pay the above sum (SAT$1710.00) to MOR.
Representation:	Plaintiff for Himself D Talouli & A Tumua
Catchwords:	Indemnity costs
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:	Apia Construction & Engineering Ltd v Samoa National Provident Fund (Unreported Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Samoa delivered on 15 September 2017)
Summary of decision:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN:

FAA’IU MATAAFA of Saleapaga Samoa
Plaintiff

AND:

MINISTRY OF REVENUE of Apia Samoa
Defendant

Counsel:
Plaintiff for Himself
Mr D Talouli & A Tumua

DECISION AS TO COSTS

Costs Application

1. At the conclusion of my judgment, the parties were ordered to file memorandum as to costs. The Defendant has done so but none has been received from the Plaintiff.
2. It is well established that costs usually follow the event. The Defendant seeks indemnity costs. The issue therefore for me to consider is whether this should be awarded as opposed to party to party costs.
3. The law on how costs should be awarded is settled so I do not wish to traverse to this suffice to refer to the recent Court of Appeal decision Apia Construction & Engineering Ltd v Samoa National Provident Fund^[1] where the learned Justices of that Court accepted that party to party scale of costs are “well out of date”. The Court there further observed:
   • “In appropriate cases costs of up to two – thirds of actual and reasonable costs may be possible. However there is no rule to that effect and each case must be considered according to its own particular circumstances.”
4. The Court of Appeal in the above matter was of the view that the invoices produced by the Appellant of expenses incurred were “not unnecessary or unreasonable”. It upheld the appeal on costs and awarded $150,970.00 in favour of the Appellant.
5. In the instant matter, I struck out the claim by the Plaintiff on grounds canvassed in my judgment of 21 August 2017 which I need not repeat here.
6. This proceeding in my view should have never been brought against MOR in the first. But the Plaintiff insisted on pursuing a hopeless case thereby forcing MOR to defend it and incurring costs.
7. In the circumstances, MOR is entitled to indemnity costs. The submitted invoice in my view is “not unnecessary and unreasonable.” In fact it is much lower than expected.
8. According I award the full costs sought by MOR against the Plaintiff of $1710.00 who is hereby ordered to pay the above sum (SAT$1710.00) to MOR.

JUDGE PAPALII

---

^[1] Apia Construction & Engineering Ltd v Samoa National Provident Fund (Unreported Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Samoa delivered on 15 September 2017)