Mr Hillary Toa for
Appellant
Mr Saling Stephens for the
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
This m originates from the
decision of the Senior Magistrate Court of 4th Octobectober 1999 in
Civil Case No.85 of 1999. In those proceedings the Respondents sought
eviction orders against the
Appellant whom they alleged did not have proper
or appropriate authorisation to enter upon and to lodge in the house in
question. The house was built by the Government of Vanuatu to accommodate
its Agriculture Field Officers. It seems from
the record that the house was
unoccupied when the Appellant entered and took possession. The Court below
on the evidence
adduced before it held that the house belonged to the Hog
Harbour Community. The Court, therefore Ordered that the Appellant
remain in
the house but that he should pay monthly rentals to the Community.
The Appellant appealed to this
Court by lodging a Memorandum of Appated 19th Novembovember 1999.
His grounds are that:-
(1) &nbp; &nnbp;&&nbp;;&nbpp; &nsp;   The Magistratstrate erred in fact in determining that the residence hall
of the Agriculture Department at Hog Harbour, Eanto
gs toHog
Harbour Communispan>
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(2) ;&nbssp; &nsp; &nbs; &nbbp;&n p;
The Mage Magistrate erred in fact in determining that ppellhould pay to the Hog Harbour Community when the house is still a govergovernmentnment
pro property.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The appeal was fixed for
hearing on 12 June 2000. On that date no counsel was involved
and Parties appeared in person. The Appellant told the Court that he had
a
lawyer who was not available in Court that day and he asked for an
adjournment. He was granted the adjournment. The
Court fixed the next
hearing that day on 21st July, 2000.
On 21st July 2000 Mr
Sts appeared on behalf of the Respondents. The Appellant info informed the
Court that he had tried contacting
his lawyer about 4 times without success.
He therefore sought a further adjournment. The adjournment was granted. The
Court ordered that the appeal be adjourned to 18th August with
liberty to the Appellant to file and serve further affidavits. Liberty was
also granted to the Respondents
to file and serve further affidavits in
response. The Appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the adjournment.
Today Mr Toa appearing on
behalf of the Appellant tells the Court that he wa aware of these
OrderOrders until yesterday
17th August. He tells the Court that he
has prepared hand-written affidavits but has not had time to file and serve
them on
the Respondents. He asks for a further adjournment.
Mr Sts objected to a
further adjournment submitting that the Appellant has hand sufficientcient time
to prepare his affidavit.
He renews his application to dismiss the appeal.
He submits that the evidence which the Appellant now relies on was not part
of the evidence in the Court below. This is contained in a letter dated 13th
May 2000 by a Mr Philip Panpan, Agriculture Officer in Luganville. By that
letter the Appellant is recognised as "Caretaker"
of the house in question.
The Appellant told the Court on 21 July, 2000 that this letter was the basis
of his appeal
against the decision of the Senior Magistrate.
In my opinion this Court has
been over-generous to the Appellant. He has sough previous adjournments
and they have
been granted him. The Orders of the Court of 21st
July 2000 are very clear. It is almost a month and the Appellant has done
nothing about complying or making use of the
liberty given him. It makes me
wonder whether or not the Appellant is serious about his appeal. Mr Toa
arrived in Luganville
on Wednesday this week but only just requested the
documents yesterday. The Court cannot continue to adjourn cases where
parties fail to comply with Court Orders and especially where the party
failing is the one who has to request for a further
adjournment in order to
so comply.
I cannot accept that the letter
dated 13th May 2000 which the Appellndicates to the Court is
is
the basis of his appeal. His appeal was lodged on 19th November,
1999 some 7 months earlier. It could therefore not have been the reason why
the Appellant chose to appeal.
I come to the conclusiot
the grounds of appeal as given by the Appellant disclose no reasonable
groundrounds for which
the Appellant could appeal. And for this and the other
reasons given, I must dismiss this appeal. The Appellant will pay the
Respondents costs of the appeal.
DATED at Luganville this 18th
day of August, 2000.
BY THE COURT
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2000/47.html
