{\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};}
{\f36\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}CG Times{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f67\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02040602050305030304}Book Antiqua;}{\f181\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f182\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f184\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f185\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f186\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f187\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f188\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f189\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f851\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Book Antiqua CE;}{\f852\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Book Antiqua Cyr;}{\f854\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Book Antiqua Greek;}
{\f855\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Book Antiqua Tur;}{\f858\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Book Antiqua Baltic;}}{\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\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid7687583 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\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f36\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid7687583 Body Text;}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\sa120\sl480\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid7687583 Body Text 2;}}{\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid275809\rsid811014\rsid862776\rsid1009808\rsid1598413\rsid1839655\rsid1972231\rsid2193419
\rsid2309175\rsid2371452\rsid2504626\rsid2506087\rsid2835935\rsid3176464\rsid3422714\rsid3810279\rsid3822112\rsid3831056\rsid4160285\rsid4199292\rsid4329331\rsid4331392\rsid4744076\rsid4815830\rsid4855016\rsid4931203\rsid5052173\rsid5062183\rsid5115695
\rsid5123780\rsid5592493\rsid5643559\rsid6060947\rsid6124773\rsid6160848\rsid6514138\rsid6782860\rsid6844466\rsid6953338\rsid7366506\rsid7483118\rsid7603624\rsid7687583\rsid7958375\rsid8016262\rsid8083724\rsid8270074\rsid8524331\rsid8598875\rsid8790013
\rsid8866877\rsid9189166\rsid9452663\rsid9455426\rsid9776131\rsid10355983\rsid10712439\rsid10749241\rsid10881896\rsid11014019\rsid11292607\rsid11355540\rsid11404427\rsid11872555\rsid11880640\rsid11928628\rsid12063525\rsid12081942\rsid12211158\rsid12921552
\rsid12931985\rsid12983114\rsid13198352\rsid13514346\rsid14055906\rsid14105686\rsid14108652\rsid14496123\rsid14510136\rsid14695321\rsid14967201\rsid15032169\rsid15159555\rsid15297671\rsid15405516\rsid15468997\rsid15541791\rsid15560408\rsid15864576
\rsid15945946\rsid16592213\rsid16597937\rsid16671932}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title \'93this is a quote, has said, of me saying \'91this is a quote\'92\'94}{\author raikatalau_l}{\operator raikatalau_l}
{\creatim\yr2011\mo6\dy16\hr13\min32}{\revtim\yr2011\mo6\dy16\hr13\min32}{\version2}{\edmins2}{\nofpages4}{\nofwords1994}{\nofchars9994}{\*\company Pacific Legal Information Institue}{\nofcharsws11926}{\vern24689}}
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1
\jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct
\asianbrkrule\rsidroot7687583\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\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 
\qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid10355983 {\*\bkmkstart Republic_Fiji_AG_v_Chandrika_Prasad_1}
REPUBLIC OF FIJI & ATTORNEY-GENERAL v CHANDRIKA PRASAD  }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid10355983 {\*\bkmkend Republic_Fiji_AG_v_Chandrika_Prasad_1}(No. }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 1}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid10355983 )
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid10355983 
\par Court of Appeal Appellate Jurisdiction 
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid6124773 17 January, 2001\tab }{\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583\charrsid6124773 ABU0078/00S (on appeal from HBC 217/2000S (No. 4)) 
\par }\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \f36\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\i\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid13514346 Constitution \endash 
 stay of execution of declarations pending appeal \endash }{\i\fs22\insrsid7687583  logical problem as }{\i\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid10881896 no legally coercive effect of Judgment -}{\fs22\insrsid7687583  }{\i\fs22\insrsid7687583 
power of single judge - }{\i\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid13514346 Court of Appeal Act s20}{\i\fs22\insrsid7687583 ; 1997 Constitution 
\par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\i\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid13514346 
\par }\pard \s16\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\i\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid13514346 leave to adduce affidavit evidence \endash }{\i\fs22\insrsid7687583 
 paucity of evidence before the High Court -  officers not available to depose until after date fixed for filing affidavits \endash  fluid events occurring after High Court hearing - public interest - special grounds 
\par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs22\insrsid7687583 
The High Court made a number of declarations which the State (interim civilan government) appealed against. The State sought, before a single Judge, to stay the High Court declarations, which declared, among others, that }{
\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 the 1997 Constitution remains the supreme }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 and }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid1839655 extant law of Fiji, the }{\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583\charrsid1839655 
attempted coup of May 19th 2000 was unsuccessful, the declaration of a State of Emergency by the President in the circumstances then facing the nation, is valid }{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583\charrsid15468997 ab initio}{
\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583\charrsid1839655  under the doctrine of necessity,}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid1839655  and that the Parliament as constituted prior to}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
 the events of May 2000 still held office}{\fs22\insrsid7687583 . The Judge discussed the logical problem inherent in the concept of staying declaratory orders, which are }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 no more than judicial statements of the law}
{\fs22\insrsid7687583  it stated that the declarations themselves cannot be nullified, either temporarily or permanently, but may be set aside. As there was }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
no evidence of activities or proposed conduct flowing from the judgment o}{\fs22\insrsid7687583 n}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555  which a stay order could effectively operate}{\fs22\insrsid7687583 , }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
the application for stay of execution }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 was }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 refused.}{\fs22\insrsid7687583 
 The Judge next considered an application to adduce further evidence under r.22(2) of the Court of Appeal rules, and allowed evidence of matters occurring after the date of hearing on 23 August 2000 to enable the appellate 
Court to assess the legality of the present interim civilian administration and the extent to which it is effectively governing the country and receiving public support. The Judge considered special grounds existed, including the paucity of materials befo
r
e the trial Judge, the fluid situation, events occurring after hearing which may assist the appellate Court to assess the legality of the current administration, the fact that deponents were not available at the time the trial Judge fixed a timetable for 
filing affidavits and overwhelming public interest.  He allowed the Appellants to file affidavits of proposed deponents, with liberty to the Respondents to reply.
\par }\pard\plain \s16\qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid2835935 
\par }{\b\fs22\insrsid7687583 Held\endash }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid10881896 (1) The nature of}{\b\fs22\insrsid7687583  }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 declarations themselves cannot be nullified, either temporarily or per
manently, but may be set aside on appeal. The High Court\rquote 
s opinion at the end of its 15 November 2000 judgment of what should happen as a result does not have any legally coercive effect. In any event, there was no evidence of activities or proposed conduc
t flowing from the judgment in respect of which a stay order could effectively operate. }{\b\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \fi374\li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs22\insrsid7687583 (2) Overwhelming public interest, the }{
\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 paucity of affidavits}{\fs22\insrsid7687583  before the High Court hearing, the fluid situation, the fact that the officers capable of dealing with the 
case had been sworn in 4 days after the date fixed for filing the Appellants\rquote 
 affidavits, the proposed evidence now available to the appellate Court, and by the opportunity for the Respondent to reply to it, constitute special grounds under r.22(2) Court of Appeal Rules on which }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 evidence }{
\fs22\insrsid7687583 of}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555  matters which occurred after the date of }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 the High Court }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 hearing }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 is to }{
\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 be admitted in the appeal}{\fs22\insrsid7687583 . The proposed evidence is to enable the appellate Court to assess}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555  the legality of the}{\fs22\insrsid7687583 
 present administration by }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 the extent to which it is effectively governing the country and receivin}{\fs22\insrsid7687583 g public support. The appellate}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
 Court cannot close its eyes to any relevant developments over the months following the hearing}{\fs22\insrsid7687583 .}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par Application for stay refused. Leave to Appellants to file further evidence.
\par 
\par }{\b\fs22\insrsid7687583 Case referred to in Decision 
\par }\pard \s16\ql \fi-374\li374\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin374\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\b\i\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid4199292 Registration Officer of the Suva City Fijian Urban Constituency v James Michael Ah Koy }{
\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid4199292 [1992] ABU 23/92 5 January 1994 
\par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\b\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi-374\li374\ri0\sa15\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin374\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583\charrsid5115695 
Anthony P. Molloy, Michael Scott, Ja}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583 n}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583\charrsid5115695 mai J Udit & Savenaca Banuve for the }{
\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583 appellant}{\i\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583\charrsid5115695 s}{\i\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid5115695 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sb15\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\i\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid5115695 Grant}{\f67\cf13\insrsid7687583  }{\i\fs22\cf1\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583 
M. Illingworth, Anu Patel & Neel Shivam for the Respondent}{\i\fs22\cf1\insrsid7687583 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\b\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs22\insrsid7687583 17 January, 2001\tab \tab \tab }{\b\caps\fs22\insrsid7687583 DECISION}{
\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par 
\par }{\b\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583\charrsid6844466 Casey, J}{\b\fs22\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid7687583 A
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 On 15 November 2000 Gates J. delivered judgment in the High Court at Lautoka in favour of the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 
Respondent}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555  in which he made a number of declarations generally 
to the effect that the 1997 Constitution remains the supreme law of Fiji and that the Parliament as constituted prior to the events of May 2000 still held office The }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
s have appealed against this judgment, and it is to be heard on 19 February 2001.
 They apply to this Court for a stay of execution of the declaratory orders made by His Lordship, who refused a similar application on 20 December 2000. They also seek leave to adduce affidavit evidence in support of their appeal: Both these applications 
came before me to be dealt with as a single Judge of the Court under {\*\bkmkstart s20_FCA_Republic_v_Prasad_1}s20{\*\bkmkend s20_FCA_Republic_v_Prasad_1} of the Court of Appeal Act (Cap 1 2) as amended in 1998.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\b\fs22\ul\insrsid7687583 
\par }{\b\fs22\ul\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 Stay application
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 This can be dealt with briefly. Mr Molloy recognised th
e logical problems inherent in the concept of staying declaratory orders, which in this case are no more than judicial statements of the law. His Lordship\rquote 
s opinion at the end of his judgment of what should happen as a result does not have any legally coer
cive effect. Short of setting aside the judgment (which can only be done on appeal) there is no way that the declarations themselves can be nullified, either temporarily or permanently. While there is jurisdiction to intervene against specific predictable
 effects of a declaratory judgment in appropriate circumstances (see }{\b\i\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 Registration Officer v Ah Koy}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
 (CA 23/1992; 5 January 1994), there is in this case no evidence of activities or proposed conduct flowing from the judgment in respect of which a stay order could effectively operate. Accordingly the application for stay of execution must be refused. I a
m not prepared to accede to Mr Molloy\rquote s request that I indicate that any pending litigation based on His Lordship\rquote 
s judgment should be deferred until the appeal is decided. This is a matter for the parties and the Courts concerned to consider.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\b\fs22\ul\insrsid7687583 
\par }{\b\fs22\ul\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 Leave to adduce evidence
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
The proposed evidence consists of thirteen affidavits by those principally concerned with the administration of Fiji islands, said to contain facts or matters arising prior and subsequent to the judgment of 15 November. Provision for the admis
sion of further evidence is contained in {\*\bkmkstart r22_2_FCA_Rules_Jokapeci_v_Ravuvu_1}Rule 22(2){\*\bkmkend r22_2_FCA_Rules_Jokapeci_v_Ravuvu_1} of the Court of Appeal Rules as follows:
\par }\pard \qj \fi402\li720\ri526\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin526\lin720\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 \'93(2) The Court of Appeal shall have full discretionary power to receive further evidence upon
 questions of fact, either by oral examination in court, by affidavit, or by deposition taken before an examiner or commissioner:
\par Provided that in the case of an appeal from a judgment after trial or hearing of any cause or matter upon the merits, no such 
further evidence (other than evidence as to matters which have occurred after the date of the trial or hearing) shall be admitted except on special grounds.\'94
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-35\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-35\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 I have no doubt that evidence as to matters which have occurred after the date of hearing on 23 A
ugust 2000 should be admitted in the appeal. A major factor in assessing the legality of the present administration is said to be the extent to which it is effectively governing the country and receiving public support. This Court cannot close its eyes to
 any relevant developments over the months following the hearing.
\par In addition to this general view of the situation, there are some special features justifying the admission of further evidence of matters which arose before the hearing. It is clear from the judgment under appeal that His Lordship had problems with the p
aucity of the affidavits and found it necessary to take a \'93more generous approach\'94 to notorious facts than might normally be appropriate. The }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Respondent}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 \rquote 
s summons was taken out on 30 June 2000, barely one month after the attempted coup of 19 May when events were (as described by His Lordship) \'93fast flowing and fluid\'94
. On 14 July a timetable was laid down for the filing of supplementary affidavits. The }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Respondent}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555  complied, but the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
s did not. Mr Molloy informed me that the interim civilian government capable of dealing effectively with the case was not sworn in until 28 July, four days after the date fixed for filing the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{
\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 s\rquote  affidavits, and only 25 days before the hearing on 23 August.
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 Instead of filing affidavits in reply, the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 s move
d to have the summons struck out on the grounds that Mr Prasad had no standing, and on 23 August they sought to have this heard first, with a view to filing affidavits in the event of a decision against them. His Lordship ruled that both matters should pr
oceed to an immediate hearing and his judgment on 15 November he dismissed the strike \endash  out summons, as well as making the declaration sought by Mr Prasad. In the meantime, on 19 September the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{
\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 s sought leave from the High Court to appeal against His Lordship\rquote s decision to hear both summonses on 23 August, and that application was refused in separate judgment delivered 15 November.
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 In support of the last-mentioned summons for leave to appeal, the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 s filed an affidavit by Mr Tuilevuka sworn o
n 19 September 2000. In it he complained that as a result of his Lordship\rquote s decision to proceed with both to proceed with both summonses on the same day, the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
s were deprived of the opportunity to adduce evidence in reply. (This assertion was round
ly rejected in His Lordship judgment.) He exhibited copies of affidavits filed on their behalf in action raising similar issues sworn on 14 September by the Attorney General in the Interim Military Government and by the Commander of the Fiji Military Forc
es respectively. They set out in abbreviated form some of the material which the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 s now seek to adduce in evidence in considerably greater detail.
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 On 13 October 2000 the summons for leave to appeal was heard by his Lordship, who ruled, over the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Respondent}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
s objection, that Mr Tuilevuka affidavit and exhibits would be accepted to show the Court what evidence would have been available, not to inform it on the substantive matter ( i.e. the summons for declaratory orders, still under consideration). Neve
rtheless, in his judgment on that matter he recorded that he had considered those affidavits in the wider national interest, notwithstanding that Mr. Prasad\rquote s counsel had been deprived of the opportunity of addressing the Court on them.  
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 From this account taken from High Court record it is clear that whether due to the misjudgment of }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 s\rquote 
 counsel, or for reasons such as those outlined by Mr Molloy, the material available to his Lordship was nowhere as complete as that which can now be furnished by the admission proposed evidence, and by the opportunity for the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 
Respondent}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555  to reply to it.  
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 I need not stress the importance of this Court having as much material as possible in order to determine the appeal with its overwhelming public interest, even if
 it means subjecting Mr Prasad to a virtual rehearing of the case. That public interest, together with the deficiencies in the evidence which caused His Lordship such concern, constitute special grounds under the proviso to 
{\*\bkmkstart s22_2_FCA_Jokapeci_v_Ravuvu_1}s22(2) {\*\bkmkend s22_2_FCA_Jokapeci_v_Ravuvu_1}for the admission of evidence of matters occurring before the hearing date, as well as those occurring afterwards.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri-35\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-35\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\b\fs22\ul\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
\par Result
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-35\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-35\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 1. \tab The summons for stay of execution of the d}{\fs22\insrsid7687583 eclaratory orders is dismissed.}{
\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
\par }\pard \qj \fi-748\li748\ri-35\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-35\lin748\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 2. \tab Leave is granted to the }{\fs22\insrsid7687583 Appellant}{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
s to adduce the affidavit evidence of the thirteen}{\fs22\insrsid7687583  }{\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 
deponents referred to in para 4 of the affidavit of Nainendra Nand sworn on  10 January 2001 in support of their Motion to adduce further evidence.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri-35\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin-35\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid11872555 3. \tab Costs on both applications are reserved for consideration in the appeal.
\par }\pard \qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 {\i\fs22\insrsid7687583 
\par Application for stay dismissed but leave granted to Appellants to file further affidavit evidence.
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s16\qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7687583 \fs24\lang3081\langfe3081\cgrid\langnp3081\langfenp3081 {\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid275809 Marie Chan}{\b\fs22\insrsid7687583\charrsid275809 

\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1972231 
\par }}