Efi v Attorney General of Samoa [2000] WSSC 45 (4 August 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

IN THE MATTER of the Constitution of the Independent State of Samoa

AND

IN THE MATTER: of an application to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 4 of the Constitution

BETWEEN

THE HONOURABLE TUIATUA TUPUA TAMASESE EFI
of Apia, Leader of the Opposition
APPLICANT

AND:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SAMOA
RESPONDENT

Counsels: Mr A. Pereira for the Applicant
Mr George Latu for the Respondent

Date of Decision (as to costs):4 August 2000

REASONS FOR A DECISION AS TO COSTS BY WILSON J.

This is an application for costs. Mr Pereira, for the applicant, sought costs on behalf of the "successful" applicant in a sum said to be "a substantial re-imbursement" of actual costs of approximately NZ$37,000.00 plus ST$12,500.00. Written "submissions on behalf of the applicant as to costs" were handed up and relied upon. Mr Latu, for the respondent, "objected" to the award of costs in the applicant's favour and contended that, because each party was partly successful, this Court should order that each party should bear its own costs.

I propose, in the exercise of my discretion, to allow to the applicant against the respondent 2/3rds of his costs on, broadly, a party and party basis.

The reduction by 1/3rd is appropriate because the applicant was not wholly successful, and the respondent was successful regarding the lack of proof of any on-going ban or restriction or infringement of constitutional rights under the Tuilaepa Administration. I consider that that significant reduction is more appropriate than to have allowed the applicant costs against the respondent on the claim arising out of the conduct of the Tofilau Administration and to have allowed the respondent costs against the applicant on the claim arising out of the conduct of the Tuilaepa Administration. It must be said, when comparing the time taken up by a consideration of the issues upon which each of the parties was successful or unsuccessful, as the case may be, that the applicant was certainly more the winner.

In the absence of any authority to bind me, I am not inclined to allow the mostly successful party (the applicant) the costs of his counsel's airfares, accommodation, meals, car-rental expenses and the like. It seems to me that expenses of that type fall into the category of solicitor and client costs.

As, in relation to the applicant's claim, there is no monetary aspect capable of being quantified, the costs according to the scale of costs set out in the Second Schedule to the Supreme Court (Fees and Costs) Rules 1971 as amended are not only difficult to assess but also they are, in the circumstances of this important case, inadequate and out of step with reality. I therefore disregard them.

As to the reasonable costs on, broadly, a party and party basis, I allow

Counsel fees	= ST 39,000.00
Solicitor’s fees	= ST 9,000.00
TOTAL	= ST$48,000.00

2/3 X 48,000 = ST$32,000.00

In the exercise of my discretion, I order that the respondent do pay to the applicant's solicitors, within 28 days from the date hereof, the sum of ST32,000.00 by way of the applicant's costs.

JUSTICE WILSON