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

Ishmael v President of the Republic of Vanuatu [2006] VUSC 78; CC 173 2005 (19 October 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)
Civil Case No.173 of 2005
BETWEEN:
PASTOR SANY ISHMAEL, PASTONG ALLAN NAFUKI, TOM LORRY, SELWYN MELTETAKE, SOLOMO NMAGAO, JOSEPH SAKARI & NORMAN VAVA
Claimant
AND:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
First Defendant
AND:
THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
Second Defendant
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
Third Defendant

Coram: Justice C. N. Tuohy
Counsel: Mr. Daniel for Claimant

Mr. Botleng for Defendants

RULING

1. Today I have heard an application to extend time for making this claim brought under Rule 17.5 (2) and I have also conducted the conference required by Rule 17.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules No. 49 of 2002.
   
2. The claim has been filed only 1 month out of time and was served at that time; there is no indication that the defendants had suffered any prejudice by reason of the 1 month delay. Mr. Botleng on behalf of the defendants responsibly does not oppose the making of an order extending time for making the claim. I therefore make such an order extending the time to the date of which the claim was actually filed.
   
3. Rule 17.8 (3) requires the Court to be satisfied as the following matters:
   

(a) the claimant has an arguable case; and

(b) the claimant is directly affected by the enactment or the decisions; and

(c) there has been no undue delay in making the claim; and

(d) no other remedy what resolves the matter fully or directly.

4. The papers filed show that the claimants were all properly appointed as members of the citizen committee for a period of 3 years and that before that period had expired their positions were all terminated without reason given to them. That in itself in my view is enough to establish that they have at least an arguable case for the remedy that they seek. There is also no doubt that the claimants are directly affected by their decision in question and that all their positions were terminated because as a result of it. As far as delay is concerned I have already referred to that in relation to the application to extend time in filing the claim and I am satisfied that delay in total has not been undue. Finally it is not been suggested that there is other remedy apart from these proceedings available to the claimants.
   

Dated at PORT VILA on 19 October 2006

BY THE COURT

C.N. Tuohy
Judge