Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Takasia v Antas [2001] VUSC 64; Civil Appeal Case 008 of 2001 (4 July 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Civil Appeal Case No.8 of 2001

BETWEEN:

VARI TAKASIA

Appellant

AND:

lass="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"m: 1">

JEU ANTAS

Respondent

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Clerk: Ms Cynthia Thomas

Counsels: Mr Hillary Toa for the Appellant

Mr Daniel Yawha for the Respondent

Hearing Date: 4th July, 2001, 8:15 a.m.

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> This is an Application by the Appellant to seek leave of the Court to appeal out of time. The Application was filed on 9^th May 2001. The appellant seeks to appeal against the decision of the Senior Magistrate�s Court entered on 29^th September, 2000 in Civil Case No. 3 of 1999. By that order the appellant was ordered:-

(1) & 6 months imprisonmunt sdedended for four monthmonths from 29^th September, 2000.

&nB">

(2) &nnsp;& Wsp;in the pehio Deio Defendant was to pay VT150.000.

(3) ;&nbssp; The rese residue be paid iaid in 15 monthly instalments of VT10,000.

(4)&nbssp; The first insnalmes wa anue and payable on or befo before 29^th February, 200.

The appellant failed to comply mply with the orders in respect of payments. The respondent sought enforcement of those orders and the appellant was put in jail since March 15^th, 2001.

His grounds of appeal are contained in the Memorandum of Leave to Appeal dated 9^th May, 2001. Basically he says that it was difficult for the appellant to keep time limits given the distance between him and the Public Solicitor�s Office. Secondly that the appellant did not know of the time limits of lodging appeals under the rules and the law.

These grounds are not sustainable. For the lant to show that he deserves an extension of time to appeal, he has to show apart rt from having a good and arguable case, that he look immediate and necessary steps after the making of the orders against him to put into process a possible and potential appeal. His affidavit in support of his application shows none of these. In fact his affidavit evidence shows that the appellant had a misunderstanding of what actually happened because at most of the times when the case was called, despite having been notified through proper service by the respondent himself, the appellant persistently failed and/or refused to respond to the notices of hearing. He persistently and blatantly defied Court Orders dated 25^th October, 1999 and of 30^th June 2000. He always had the liberty under paragraph 4 of those orders to apply to set aside. He was personally present in Court on 30^th June 2000. He cannot now say he was not aware of that opportunity to appeal. He cannot now complain that he was not afforded a fair hearing when he himself did not avail himself to such an opportunity. He cannot now come to seek justice from the Courts whose very orders the appellant blatantly refused to comply with.

The Appellant has been in jail since 15^th March, 2001. The 6 months period he is to serve would expire on 15^th August, 2001. With any remission, his jail term may just about be over.

There is no merits in this Application. I accordingly dismiss it. I order the aant to pay the respondent�s costs of the appeal.

DATED at Luganville, this 4^th day of July, 2001.

: 1"> BY THE COURT

OLIVER KSAK

Judge