|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Vanuatu |
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)
lass="MsoBoMsoBodyText" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Civil Case No.76 of 2000
BETWEspan>
JIM JAMES MOLI
Plaintiff
AND:
MAXIME C. KORMAN
Defendant
class="MsoBoMsoBodyText" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> JUDGMENT
In 1996 there existed a poal grouping called the UMP Natora Party or Andeng Faction. ion. Amos Andeng was its leader and the then Prime Minister, the defendant Maxime Korman, was a senior member. He apparently controlled the finances.
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> In May 1996 the plaintiff was asked to transport in his boat delegates from arounaround the north of the country to a congress at Erakor Village. The plaintiff says a sum of one million vatu per trip was eventually agreed and he made two trips. He says the defendant acted alone in making the agreement or acted solely as leader of the UMP Natora to instruct the plaintiff to make the two trips.
The plaintiff claims Vt. 2,000,000 less the0,000 paid, together with interest at 10 %.
The defendant says he made no such agreement in his personpacity. If any agreement want was made it was between the plaintiff and the UMP Natora party, there was only one trip, and the policy was the maximum payable for any one trip was Vt400,000. He says the sum claimed by the plaintiff is inflated.
I have heard the evidence of the plaintiff, Jacques Gideon and Amos Andeng for the plaintiff. The defendant himself gave evidence and Thomas Nentu.
class="MsoBoMsoBodyText2" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The central question is whether this agreement was made with the deft or some other person. The. The plaintiff does not seek to argue any kind of joint and several liability upon members of the party.
There is no evidence that at any time did the defendant speak to the plaintiff. The basis on which the plaintiff puts his case is the relay of a request from the defendant to the plaintiff by Jacques Gideon. That request contained an alleged threat from the defendant as Prime Minister as to what would happen if the plaintiff did not supply the transport services. Such a threat, if true, would have been a disgraceful and dishonest use of position. It was not challenged in cross-examination.
However, Jacques Gideon, the plaintiff�s witnesses did not corroe that alleged threat. Furt Further in his �Clarification Letter� (P4) of 18 October 2000 Mr. Gideon stated �The Ministry of Transport was instructed by Mr. Maxime Carlot Korman then Prime Minister and Mr. Amos Andeng then Minister of Public Works to organize the transportation of delegates from the islands to attend the congress at Erakor�.
Thas the suggestion that public servants and public service time were being used to arro arrange party political affairs. That also would be wholly wrong.
Mr. Gideon continued, �The above leaders have agreed to hire couple of ships ansport the delegates to Vila. One of the ships was M.V. El Shaddai which belongs to Mr. Moli Jim James of Ambae. He was approached by the Ministry of Transport to transport the delegates and that the leaders of UMP Natora included the then Prime Minister Mr. Korman, will pay for the service provided�.
class="MsoBoMsoBodyText2" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Mr. Gideon did not remember a second He said in oral evidence when I was �speaking to Moli, I w, I was acting on the instructions of the Minister for Transport (Amos Andeng). The Ministry of Transport was mandated to get involved in the transport of delegates to Vila.�
Mr. Gideon referred to a meeting at the Ministry of Internal Affairs when members of the �Andeng Faction�, including the defendant, Amos Andeng, Henry Taga and others were present. It was agreed the Ministry of Transport would look after transport of the delegates. His directions came from Andeng. He did not speak to Mr. Korman. He agreed there was a maximum per trip available and said he understood it was Vt. 300,000. He did not recollect talking to the plaintiff about price, nor was Vt18,750 per hour mentioned.
Amos Andeng was also called for the plaintiff. In his affidav states �Korman made it clet clear to me when giving instructions that he would arrange payment for the charters as required. He would arrange payment directly as he controlled the finances for the political party. I understand he had sufficient funds to meet a charter from monies paid to the party by supporters.�
<
Amos Andeng was aware of two t He felt sorry for the plaintiff and gave him some money frey from his own pocket. In cross- examination he said �it was a collective decision of the party to do transport� He said �the power and the money were with Korman. There was no committee to look after the money�. He agreed the UMP Natora paid for the congress. � The decisions concerning money were with Korman. I didn�t make decision on money. It was the party�s money�. He was unaware of a charter price limit.
Throughout his evidence the plaintiff said that Gideon told him that �Korman would pay�. The Congress was to be held in Korman�s village. He denied that he wanted to become a member of the UMP Natora party. He denied he sought the money directly from the defendant as his vessel was waiting to go on the slipway.
The defendant and Thomas Nentu ave evidence for the defence. The threats were denied and tand the defendant said he had no knowledge of a charter from the plaintiff at the time. In any event it was a party matter and there was a Vt 400,000 limit on any one charter. The defendant exhibited the cheque stubs of payments to other boat owners to verify this. He said the debt was the responsibility of the party.
It is for the plaintiff to prove his case on the balance of probabilities. Even on his own evidence it is not entirely clear with whom he contracted. On essential points the evidence of the plaintiff is inconsistent with that of his witnesses, and on some points they tend to support the defendant�s contention. It is not difficult to understand why the defendant feels aggrieved, having provided one or two charters and not been paid a reasonable price for them.
lass="MsoBoMsoBodyText" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> However, this claim must fail and I dismiss it.
I will order the plaintiff to pay the defendantsts on a party and party as agreed or taxed.
>p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> R.J. COVENTRY class="MsoNormal" align="cgn="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Judge
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2000/1.html