{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f37\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f38\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f40\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f41\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f42\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f43\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f44\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f45\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 Style 1;}{\s16\qj \fi432\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Style 2;}{\*\ts17\tsrowd
\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 
\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \sbasedon11 \snext17 \styrsid3551083 Table Grid;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid131868\rsid160997\rsid406793\rsid542957\rsid751748\rsid1247788\rsid1273125\rsid1461364
\rsid1838757\rsid1839672\rsid1970630\rsid2186123\rsid2303625\rsid3031618\rsid3033492\rsid3211584\rsid3498771\rsid3551083\rsid3618555\rsid4484615\rsid4672407\rsid4986094\rsid5858140\rsid7742545\rsid7805873\rsid8023046\rsid9254994\rsid9386269\rsid9510836
\rsid9588558\rsid9653628\rsid10504446\rsid10764057\rsid11365851\rsid11679268\rsid12783527\rsid13112511\rsid13248763\rsid14246016\rsid14422107\rsid14962633\rsid15166156\rsid15664382\rsid16476972\rsid16517837}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info
{\author Teniau_D}{\operator maltungtung_l}{\creatim\yr2009\mo9\dy14\hr8\min28}{\revtim\yr2010\mo5\dy20\hr10\min23}{\version32}{\edmins322}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords3662}{\nofchars20874}{\*\company scims}{\nofcharsws24488}{\vern24689}}
\paperw11907\paperh16840\margl1213\margr1213\margt1213\margb1213 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0
\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot14246016 \fet0\sectd \psz9\linex0\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid4672407\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2
\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang 
{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5858140 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 [2000] 2 FLR 81
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5858140 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5858140 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7742545 IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140\charrsid5858140 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7742545 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7742545 CIVIL JURISDICTION}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7742545 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7742545\charrsid7742545 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3033492 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140\charrsid5858140 CHANDRIKA PRASAD
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5858140 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3033492 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 v
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5858140 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid3033492 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid5858140 REPUBLIC OF FIJI & ATTORNEY-GENERAL (No.}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3211584  }{
\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid5858140 3)}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri-169\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin-169\lin0\itap0\pararsid3033492 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4672407 High Court Civil Jurisdiction}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8023046 Gates,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8023046 .}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 15 November, 2000}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8023046 HBC}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1247788 0217/}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 00L}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3033492 Stay of}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid3033492  }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3033492 
execution (1) - Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orde}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid3033492 r - whether order appealed from w}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16517837 rong or substantial in}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3033492 justice caused - role of counsel from Attorney-General}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid3033492 \rquote }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3033492 s office discussed - whether summons to strikeout was delaying tactic when respondents chose not to file affidavit materia}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid3033492 l despite being given opportunity }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3033492 - Court}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid3033492  of Appeal Act (Cap 12}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8023046 ) s12(2)(f); High Court Rules O.18 r.18(2) and O}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid3033492 .6}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3033492 7 r.3
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 T}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
he applicant sought declaratory orders that 19th May 2000 coup was unsuccessful, that state of emergency was unconstitutional, that revocation of 1997 Constitution was unconstitutional and that 1997 Constitution wa
s still in force, and that elected government was still the legitimate government. The 2nd respondent chose not to put in evidence but filed a summons to strikeout. The 2nd respondent objected to the appearance of Dr Williams from Canberra}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492  and Mr Pa}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 te}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 l}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 , as
 no Notice of Appointment of Solicitors was served on him but the Judge ruled that they could appear as advocates. The 2nd respondent sought to appeal against those interlocutory orders and a stay.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3033492 Held}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 - (1}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 ) The rule prohibiting affidavit material in }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 O}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 .18 r.18(2) would apply to }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 O}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 .18(1)(a) and (b) and to an application that an applicant had no locus standi to institute the proceedings, but not to }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 O}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 .18 r.18(1)(c)}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  and (d).
\par 
\par (2) Application for leave and stay to Court of Appeal is premature, a delaying ploy, and a flagrant breach of the Rules and gives the appearance of unethical conduct on the part of those directing the}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140  
}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 litigation for the respondents as its purpose }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 lay in preventing delivery of j}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 udgment on originating summons, the substantive matter.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Leave to appeal and stay refused.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3033492 Cases referred to in Decision
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 cons }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 Kelton Investments & Anor. v Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji & Anor}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3033492 [1995]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8023046  ABU}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 0}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16517837 034/}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 95}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 Dorasamm}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 y Rao & Ors}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  [}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8023046 1996] HBC0}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9653628 308/}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 9}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3211584 
6 Judgment of 15 November, 1996
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 appr }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 Akbar Buses Ltd}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957  v Transport Control Board and }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 Fiji Transport Co}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957  [}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9653628 1984] ABU9/}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 84}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 fo}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 ll }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 Bavadr}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 a v Attorney-General}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8023046  [}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 1987] SP}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 LR 95}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 foll}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 Republic of Peru v Peruvian Guano Co.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  (1887) 36 Ch. D. 489}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 f}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 oll }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 A-G }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 of the Duchy}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957  of Lancaster v London and NW}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8023046  }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 Railway Co}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 . [1892] 3 Ch. 274}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 foll }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 Wenlock v Moloney }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 [}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8023046 1965 ] 2 All E}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 R 871}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 foll }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 Day v William H}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 ill (Park Lane) Limited}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  [1949] 1 KB 632}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 fo}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3211584 l}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 l }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 R}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 ogerson v Law Society of the Northern Territory}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957  [1993] 88 NTR 1.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 fo}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 ll }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  [1978] VR 451}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13112511 F}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3211584 o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 ll }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 
Nationwide News Pty. Ltd. (t/}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 a Centralian Advo}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 cate) v Bradshaw}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957  (1986) 41 NTR 1}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13112511 F}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 oll }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 Perry v Sm}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 ith}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  (1901) 27 VLR 66}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang10250\langfe1033\langnp10250\insrsid13112511\charrsid7742545 F}{\fs24\lang10250\langfe1033\langnp10250\insrsid14246016\charrsid7742545 oll }{\b\i\fs24\lang10250\langfe1033\langnp10250\insrsid14246016\charrsid7742545 Ex parte Bucknell}{
\fs24\lang10250\langfe1033\langnp10250\insrsid14246016\charrsid7742545  [19}{\fs24\lang10250\langfe1033\langnp10250\insrsid542957\charrsid7742545 76] 56 CL}{\fs24\lang10250\langfe1033\langnp10250\insrsid14246016\charrsid7742545 R 221
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13112511 F}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3211584 o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 ll }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 Dunstan v Simmie & Co. Pty. Ltd}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 . 1978 VR 669}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13112511 F}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957 oll }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957 Darrel Lea (Vic.) Pty.}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957  Limited}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid406793 . }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 v Union Assurance Society of}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid542957  }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid542957 Australia Ltd}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 . [1969] VR 401}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid406793 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid13112511 Anu Patel with}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511  Neil Shivam for the applicant/respondent}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid13112511 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri-79\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin-79\lin0\itap0\pararsid542957 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511 Janm}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid13112511 ai }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511 Udit}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid13112511  with E}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511  Akamigb}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid13112511 o}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511  for the 1}{\i\fs18\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511 st}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511  and 2}{\i\fs18\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511 nd}{\i\fs18\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511  }{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid542957\charrsid13112511 respondents/}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid13112511 appellants
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5858140 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140\charrsid13112511 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13112511 1}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 5 November 2000.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4986094 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094\charrsid4986094 DECISION
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094 
\par }{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 Gates, J.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 The
 Applicant had filed an originating summons in this matter on 4 July 2000. At that time he was an applicant in person before the court and a refugee at the Girmit Centre, Lautoka. He appears to have had some legal assistance along the way. He filed an aff
i
davit in support of his summons. The originating summons, as amended, sought declaratory orders following the constitutional crisis of 19th May 2000 and succeeding days. The declaratory orders sought were that the 19th May coup was unsuccessful, that the 
d
eclaration of a state of emergency was unconstitutional, that the revocation of the 1997 Constitution by the Interim Military Government was unconstitutional and that the 1997 Constitution was still in force. Finally an order was sought declaring the elec
ted government to be still the legitimate }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094\charrsid14246016 government}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 

\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Papers were duly served on the Respondents at the Attorney-General's Chambers in Suva on 10th July 2000. On 12th July 2000 the Respondents filed their acknowledgment of service. The }
{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10504446 summons return date was 14th Jul}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 y 2000.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094 O}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
n that date Dr. S. Shameem appeared for the Applicant, and Mr. Udit for the Respondents. Dr. Shameem appeared in a private capacity as counsel to assist and not, as at first thought, on behalf of the Human Rights C
ommission. Having read the affidavit filed in support and the summons I drew to both counsels' attention that there was a need for the affidavit material to deal with the acceptance or non-acceptance of the state of affairs and government of Fiji at the c
u
rrent time. Dr. Shameem pressed for an early hearing date. The Applicant was therefore allowed to file a supplementary affidavit within 7 days to deal with the issue I had raised. The Respondents were given 10 days thereafter to file their affidavit in op
position, and the Applicant a further 3 days to reply to that. The hearing date was put off ti}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094 ll }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 23 August 2000}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094  to allow the compil}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 ing of necessary evidence.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 There were of course various matters that the Applicant needed to establish before the court could consider granting the orders sought. For the }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16476972\charrsid14246016 Respondents}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16476972 ,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16476972\charrsid14246016  the}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
 chief fact to be proved was that though the 1997 Constitution had been unlawfully abrogated in the sense that the path for amendment of the Constitution as supreme law as set out in Chapter 15 sections 19}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094 0}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
-192 had not been followed, nonetheless there was broad agreement with, support for, and acceptance of, by the people of Fiji, such an otherwise illegitimate change. The onus of proof of the acceptance of the unlawfulness was on the Respondents
. I had suggested that}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
appropriate evidence either way might be enhanced by poll surveys. In any event there was a need to gather opinion ev}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094 idence of the acceptance or non-}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 acceptance issue.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid11365851 Sinc}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 e this might take a little time, those assisting the applican
t or the solicitors acting for the Attorney-General's office, each would have to move with necessary despatch in order to be ready in time for the hearing on 23 August 2000. After all, this was an urgent constitutional case of some importance. Additionall
y
 if the matter were allowed to drag, this situation would tend to favour unfairly the litigant seeking to suggest that there had been acceptance of the unlawful state of affairs by providing further time and therefore further opportunity for acceptance of
 that state of affairs.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4986094 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid7805873 The solicitors}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
 acting for the Respondents appear to have elected not to gather such evidence and indeed not to file affidavit evidence}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11679268  for the hearing. Instead they f}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 iled a summons to strike out on 7th August 2000 returnable for the
 same day as the hearing date, namely the 23rd August 2000. Besides the usual format of complaints under Order 18 rule 18 of the High Court Rules, the Respondents alleged that the Applicant had no locus standi to institute the proceedings. Meanwhile the A
pplicant filed his supplementary affidavit in support of the originating summons, and an affidavit of one Peter Sipeli.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873 
\par O}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 n 23 August 2000 Mr. Udit asked that his summo
ns to strike out be heard first. He also objected to the appearance of Dr. Williams from Canberra, who was temporarily admitted for the case and of Mr. Anu Patel of the Lautoka Bar both of whom appeared as counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Udit said no Notic
e of Appointment of Solicitors had been served on him pursuant to Order 67 r. 3. I ruled that Dr. Williams and Mr. Patel could appear as advocates for the Applicant.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 After stating that his summons to strike out should be heard first, Mr. Udit said he "may have to file affidavit evidence if your Lordship rules against me.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873 " H}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
e said he was not aware of the representation for the Applicant for the hearing, though he had spoken to Dr. Shameem. He knew that Dr. Shameem had been assisting the Applicant and had bee
n counsel on the previous occasion. Dr. Williams objected to any adjournment and said the Respondents should have been ready to argue the summons to strike out and the originating summons together. The previous order for filing of affidavits had not been 
complied with by the Respondents. The matter was urgent, it concerned human rights, and the Applicant, a farmer who had lost everything was now a refugee. The action raised issues of law and they should be argued and heard without delay.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 I ruled that the two summons would indeed be heard that same day. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873\charrsid14246016 I}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  heard oral argument from both sides. Dr. Williams produced a written skeleton submission also. At the conclusion I permitted Mr. Udit for the Respondents a
 further 14 days for him to file a written submission in reply. Subsequently by exchange of correspondence, the applicant's solicitors allowed the Respondents further time till 20th September 2000, which was not complied with. Subsequently I allowed furth
er time to the Respondents for the submission, which extension did produce the desired result. However I shall revert to this matter later.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 On 19th September 2000 the Respondents issued a summons for leave to appeal the two interlocutory orders, those were
 the decision to allow Dr. Williams and Mr. Anu Patel to appear as advocates for the Applicant and the decision to}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
hear the two summonses together on 23 August 2000, the striking out and the substantive originating summons seeking the declaratory orders. T
he Respondents seek a stay on all further proceedings in the matter. They also sought "alternatively an extension be granted to the Respondents/Appellants to file written submissions beyond the fourteen days granted by this Honourable Court and/or until s
uch further time this application is dealt with." In support, an affidavit was filed sworn by Anare Tuilevuka on the same date.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 The Applicant filed an affidavit in reply sworn on 4th August 2000}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873 .}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  This dealt with the agreement between counsel to allow Mr. Udit an extension till 20th September within which to file his written submission.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Before moving on to deal with the issue of leave to appeal the interlocutory orders, it is necessary to make some observations on the Respondents' affidavit. At paragraph 11
 of Mr. Tuilevuka's affidavit he states: "The said rules do not permit the filing of any affidavit material on behalf of the Respondent." This was a somewhat simplistic statement. It would apply to the }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1970630\charrsid14246016 Respondents}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1970630 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1970630\charrsid14246016  arguments}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  relating to (a) and (b) of the summons to strike out}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1970630 ,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
 that is there being disclosed in the originating summons no reasonable cause of action and that the Applicant had no locus standi to institute the proceedings [Order 18 r. 18(2)] see }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 Republic of Peru v. Peruvian Guano Co}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3211584  (1887) 36 Ch.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 D. 489 at 498}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid7805873 ; }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 
A-G of the Duchy of Lancaster v. London and NW Railwa}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3618555 y}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140  Co}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  [1892] 3 Ch. 274: }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 Wenlock v Maloney
}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid7805873  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 [196}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873 5}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 ] 2 All ER 871. B}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873 ut}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  for the }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748\charrsid14246016 Respondents}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748 \rquote }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748\charrsid14246016  argument}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
 on paragraphs (c) and (d) of the summons, that the application was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process, the prohibition on the filing of, and reliance on, affidavit material in support would not apply }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 Republic of Peru}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  (supra) at 498; }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 
Wenlock v. Maloney}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  at (supra) 873H. The }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748\charrsid14246016 Respondents}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748 \rquote }
{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748\charrsid14246016  summons}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  also seeks the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In such cases also affidavits are a}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10764057 dmissible for consideration }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10764057\charrsid5858140 Wen}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 lock v. Maloney}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  at 874C; }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid5858140 Day v. William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  [1949] 1 KB 632 at 639. There was therefore an inaccuracy in the statement made in Mr. Tuilevuka's affidavit.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7805873 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5858140 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Secondly, at paragraph 5 of his affidavit Mr. Tuilevuka deposed:}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid9510836 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 "...however Respondents were not allowed to file any affidavit."}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5858140 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 and at paragraph 12:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5858140\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid2303625 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid2303625 
"...the Respondent has not been allowed to adduce evidence to contradict the evidence of the Applicant."}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10764057 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Within the same affidavit [at paragraph 9(c)], Mr. Tuilevuka had referred to the original order}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9510836 s of the court on 14th July }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9510836\charrsid2303625 200}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid2303625 0}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  permitting }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid2303625 the Respondents}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  to file an answering affidavit within }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid2303625 10}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9510836  days. The phrase in paragraph 5}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
 therefore "(the) Respondents were not allowed to file any affidavit" is inaccurate and should not have appeared in Mr. Tuilevuka's affidavit. Counsel are reminded of t
he importance of factual accuracy in the drafting of affidavits, not only in cases where they assist a deponent in the drafting of his or her affidavit, but also and specially when these aff}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625 
idavits are to be counsel's own.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  Affidavits are not pleadings but 
evidence taken under oath. They should avoid ambiguities and factual misstatements. The court expects this much of counsel as officers of the court. }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748\charrsid14246016 However}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748 ,}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748\charrsid14246016  I}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  believe there was no intention to mislead the court here.

\par 
\par The Respondents seek leave of this court to appeal the two interlocutory orders pursuant to section 12(2}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid751748\charrsid14246016 ) (}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
f) of the Court of Appeal Act (Cap. 12).
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 In an application for leave to appeal the order to be appealed from must be seen to be clearly wrong or at least attended with sufficient doubt 
and causing some substantial injustice before leave will be granted see }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Rogerson v. Law}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid1839672  }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Society }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid1839672 of the Northern Territory}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid1839672  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 [}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625 1993]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  88 NTR 1 at 5-33}{
\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid2303625 ; }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Niemann v. Electronic Industries Ltd}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  [1978] VR 451; }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Nationwide News Pty}
{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid1839672 . Ltd. (t/}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 a Centralian Adv}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid1839672 
ocate) v. Bradshaw}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625  (1986) 41 NT}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 R 1.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Fiji's legislative policy against appeals from interlocutory orders appears to be similar inter alia to that of the State of Victoria, }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Perry v. Smith}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  (1901) 27 VLR 66 at 68; and also with appeals to the High Court of}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Australia, see }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Ex parte}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid1839672  }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Bucknell}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672  [}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625 1976]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4672407  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625 56 C}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
LR 221 at 223. If it is necessary for instance to expose a patent mistake of law in the judgment or to show that the result of the decision is so unreasonable or unjust as to demonstrate error, then leave will be given }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Niemann }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
(supra) at 432. It is not sufficient for an appeal court to gauge, that when faced with the same material or situation, it would have decided the matter differently. The court must be satisfied that the decision is clearly wrong (}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Niemann}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  at 436).}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Leave could be given for an exceptional circumstance such as if the order has the effect of determining the rights of the parties }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Bucknell }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 (supra) at 225; }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 
Dunstan v. Simmie & Co. Pty. Ltd}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid1839672 .}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625 [1978]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
 VR 669 at 670. This is not the case}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 here. Leave could also be given if}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 "substantial injustice would result from allowing the order, which it is}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625  sought to impugn to stand," }{
\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid2303625 Du}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid2303625 nstan }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 (supra) at 670; }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4484615 Darrel Lea (Vic}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 .) Pty. Ltd v. Union Assurance Society of Australia Ltd.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  [1969] VR 401 at 408.
\par 
\par I have looked at a number of other auth}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625 orities also including }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid1839672 Kelton Investments & Anr}{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 . v. Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji & Anor.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  (unreported) Court}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3618555  of Appeal Civil Appeal No. ABU}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 0034 of 1995 18 July 1995; }{
\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Ashmore v.}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672  }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Lloyds}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 [1992] 1 WLR 446; }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Dorasammy Rao
 and Others v. Mariappan Gounder}{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2303625\charrsid1839672  }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 and Others}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  (unreported) High Co}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3618555 urt Civil Action No. HBU}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3211584 0308.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 1996. The Practice Note arising out of }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1839672 Smith v. Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  [1997}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083 ]}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3211584  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 4 All ER 840 to which Mr. Udit had referred me seems to be dire
cted largely at discouraging appeals from orders granting leave to appeal to set aside orders, that is where leave has already been granted. In summary, the matter would appear to }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083 
rest with the strength of the j}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 ustice of the matter. Does the Court of Appeal feel compelled to intervene to prevent injustice?}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 

\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 I find there is no prospect of success in the appeal against the interlocutory order to allow Dr. Williams and Mr. Patel to appear for the Applicant.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 The original proceedings though not seeking injun}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083 cti}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid160997 ve relief or h}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083 eave to}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
 appeal were nonetheless of more than ordinary urgency. The Respondents have either taken the matter very lightly or have sought to delay the proceedings. No proper explanation has been provided to the court for the failure to file aff
idavit material for the hearing.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 In effect this appeal amounts to saying: (a) that the hearing should not have proceeded on that d}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083 ay, 23 August 2000, because the 
}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Respondents had elected not to file affidavits; (b) As a result of that election, the Respondents had no}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 evidence before the court, which it is now said was unfair to the Respondents. (c) The Respondents were entitled not to file affidavits, though the court had}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 ordered their filing. (d) The Respondents were entitled also to come to court on 23 Au
gust 2000 and seek an adjournment so that a date could be fixed for hearing of the striking out matter and, after all that was concluded, then the Respondents could file their affidavits.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 This approach to the litigation in hand overlooks several relevant 
factors namely the need for fast tracking of a constitutional case of this character and importance, the opportunity already afforded to the Respondents for placing their evidence before the court, and that at the hearing overseas counsel was present, ass
isting an indigent applicant, ready to argue his case.
\par 
\par On 5th October 2000 when the application for leave and stay was first called the following exchange took place (extract in note form):}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1839672\yts17 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 Mr. Udit:}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672\charrsid1839672  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 Now filed application for leave. We are not filing a written submission until we have had this summons dealt with.
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1839672\yts17 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 Court:}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672\charrsid1839672  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 Why apply for extra time (in summons) to file written submission when you never intended to file a written submission?
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1839672 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 Mr. Udit:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672\charrsid1839672  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 We have changed our position. We are not going to file a written submission. We seek to proceed on the summons for leave.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1839672 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1839672\yts17 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 Mr. Anu Patel:}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672\charrsid1839672  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 Order of court that submissions would be filed within 14}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3618555  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 days. No appeal against that order. A-G flouting court\rquote s order. Application not to be heard until contempt purged. Need for expeditious hearing.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1839672\yts17 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid1839672 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672 
Abuse of process, mere delaying tactics. Authority of court to be protected. My friend has said he acts on order of his superiors in Suva. He is an officer of the court.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1839672\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3551083 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Su
bsequently I caused a letter to be written by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Lautoka, giving the Respondents a final 7 days within which to file their written submission. This order was complied with. On 13 October 2000 at the leave hearing, Mr
. Udit said I should not write my judgment. Chitty J. in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14962633 Republic of Peru}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
 (supra) at 499, commented aptly albeit on another topic, the need of a principal to act consistently:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15166156\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15166156 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 "They must act consistently throughout; they cannot, as has often been observed 
in cases of this kind, blow hot and cold;"
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15166156\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
Prior to his statement that the Respondents were not going to file submissions Mr. Udit had written and asked the Applicant's solicitor for an extension (which was not adhered to) and then asked for more time (as
 an alternative claim) in this summons for leave. From all of this, I harbour doubts as to whether the Respondents were seeking to have their case aired properly before me, or were simply dragging the matter out.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15166156\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14962633 Rule 26}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules Cap. 12 provides:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15166156\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9386269 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
"Wherever under these Rules an application may be made either to the court below or to the Court of Appeal it shall be made in the first instance to the court below }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3498771 (emphasis added)}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
\par Now I learn that before I have delivered my ruling in the present summons for leave and stay, }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13248763 the Respondents }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13248763\charrsid9386269 have filed an}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13248763  }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13248763\charrsid9386269 ex }{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid9386269 p}{
\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid9386269 a}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid9386269 rt}{\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid9386269 e}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  Notice of Motion for stay and leave to appeal dated 20th October 2000 in the Court of Appeal. Though}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269  }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 dated the 20th October 2000, the motion is stamped on the backsheet by }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 the Court of Appeal Registry 18}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid9386269 th}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  October 2000 wit}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 h fee exemption stamp dated 19}{
\fs18\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid14962633 th}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
October 2000. The purpose of such premature application appears to be to seek a stay from the Court of Appeal to prevent the delivery of my judgment on the originating summo
ns, the substantive matter before me [Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Tuilevuka affidavit sworn on 18 October 2000]. Since the application to the Court of Appeal is clearly premature and in flagrant breach of the Rules, it gives the appearance of unethical co
nduct on the part of those directing the litigation for the Respondents.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13248763 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid3031618 The Applicant}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  sues the Republic of Fiji}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269  as 1}{
\fs18\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid14962633 st}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  Respondent and the Attorn}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 ey-General as 2}{
\fs18\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid14962633 nd}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016  Respondent. He raises constitutional issues at a time of}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 constitutional crisis. There may be 
confusion in some people's minds as to the correct status of the Constitution today. The Applicant sues the Republic and the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General traditionally defends the Government of Fiji not necessarily on behalf of the political
 
government of the day but as representative for its Departments of State. The occupant of the office of Attorney-General is today a non-elected member of Cabinet in the interim administration or caretaker government. He may have views favouring the legali
t
y of that administration. However that is not his role here, The Attorney-General and Counsel in his chambers should have adopted a neutral stance with regard to these proceedings. Their duty was not to urge the legitimacy of the present regime, but to pl
ace before the court a variety of cases and arguments, and generally to assist the court in deciding where legality and legitimacy lay. A similar ro}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 le for the Attorney-}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 General's office was approved by Speight VP in }{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14962633 Akbar Buses Ltd. v. Transport Control Boar
d and Fiji Transport Co.}{\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid9386269  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
(unreported) Fiji Court of Appeal Civil App. 9 of 1984, at 15. That case dealt with the role to be played by counsel from the Attorney-General's Chambers representing a tribunal under review. Counsel, who are also public servants, 
should adopt, and be free to adopt without pressure from superiors, in cases of this kind a neutral stance irrespective of whether they are called on as amicus curiae. They have duties of independence to the wider public, duties of conscience and ethics t
o themselves and to their profession, and duties of conduct as officers of the court. That neutral role was not adopted here, and instead a defence of the position of the lawfulness of the military takeover and of}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 the legitimacy o}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 f the interim administration wa}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 s urged without regard to other significant arguments. The}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid9254994  Bavadra }{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 case had never been referred to in the Respondents arguments put forward in the 15 page written submission in the 
striking out summons, yet it is undoubtedly the leading Fiji authority on striking out issues in constitutional cases.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 At the hearing of the summons to strike out and the originating summons, I handed to counsel a copy of the last ment}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 ioned case, }
{\b\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid14962633 Bavadra v. Attorney-General}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269  [}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
1987] SPLR 95, and asked them for their comments on it in relation to the striking out summon}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1461364 s. It was a decision of Rooney J}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
, and had not been appealed. In it the applicant, following the 1987 military coup, had sought 10 orders of which 3 were struck out. They were the claims that:}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9386269 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
1. The House of Representatives stood adjourned. The court heard this was a matter within the exclusive}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269  }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
cognizance of the House and therefore the court was not empower}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 ed to pronounce thereon. [Claim }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 3].}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9386269 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9386269 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 2}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9254994 
. That the dismissals of Deputy Speaker and Leader of}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 
 the Opposition were invalid. Since the applicant was formerly the Prime Minister he was held to have no interest in these offices. [Claim 4].}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9386269 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid9386269 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 3. That the Crown had no power to amend the Constitution by
 Order-in-Council. This was struck out since the Queen could do no wrong as a matter of law. It was therefore unsustainable to seek a declaration to t}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 he contrary. [Claim 5}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 ].}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14246016 {\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 The 3 claims that were struck out do not fall for consideration in the instant ca
se. The remaining 7 are of significant relevance. In addition, the objection of locus or standing was barely arguable. The modern approach in public law cases as well as in constitutional cases in widening access to the courts more generously has largely 
r
emoved the basis for such an objection. Upon proper consideration, the objection was not an appropriate one to take in this case. Since there was clear authority within Fiji's Jurisdiction of the justiciability of the claims now sought by the present appl
icant, the Respondents' attempt to proceed with a summons to strike out can only be viewed therefore as a delaying ploy on their part.
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9386269 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 In the course of my consideration of the facts, cases, and legal argument on the originating summons, I also viewed and t
ook into account the affidavit material proposed by the Respondents, exhibited to Mr. Tuilevuka's affidavit sworn on 19th September 2000.}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1838757\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Taking into account all of the matters which I have traversed above, I am not convinced that the appeal launched against the interlocutory orders by the Respond}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1838757 ents }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 as manifests a proper challenge to the applicant's litigation such that I should exercise my discretion in their favour.}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1838757\charrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 Accordingly I refuse leave to appeal and stay. I order the Respondents to pay the Applicant's costs of counsel and disbursements for this application which I assess summarily at $400.
}{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016 
\par }{\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1838757\charrsid14246016 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14962633 {\i\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid1838757 Application for leave to appeal and stay refused}{
\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid14246016 .
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9254994 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9254994 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1273125 {\b\fs24\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14246016\charrsid9254994 Marie Chan
\par }}