Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Dutt v Pickering [2005] FJHC 358; HBA0016.2003 (7 October 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBA0016 OF 2003
Civil Appeal No. 016 of 2003L

IN THE MATTER of an Appeal from
The decision of the Ba Magistrate’s
Court, in Civil Action No 115 of 2000.

BETWEEN:

GYANENDRA DUTT
son of Ram Dutt of Namosau Race Course Road, Ba, Fiji Motor Businessman.
APPELLANT

AND:

LUKE PICKERING and REAPI PICKERING
both of Namosau Race Course Road, Ba, Fiji.
FIRST RESPONDENT

FIJI MILITARY FORCES
SECOND RESPONDENT

FIJI POLICE FORCE
THIRD RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOURTH RESPONDENT

Mr S K Ram for the Appellant
No appearance for the First Respondent
Mr F Abu for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents

Date of Hearing: 27th July 2005
Dates of Submissions: 17 August, 7 September and 14 September 2005
Date of Judgment: 07 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF FINNIGAN J

This is an appeal by one of the parties to a neighbourly dispute against an interlocutory ruling of a Magistrate. The parties had been conducting their litigation (in my opinion) in much the same way they conducted their daily relationship, i.e causing each other as much trouble as possible. It got to the point where the Magistrate made several interlocutory decisions which I think were intended to bring matters to a head. The only result however was this appeal against his interlocutory rulings.

I have had submissions from both Counsel as set out above. Both have addressed the matter fully and in commendable detail. For that reason I am able to issue this judgment in short form without detailed reference to legal authorities. I add only the comment that appeals against interlocutory rulings will not be encouraged by the Court.

In my view the Magistrate’s interlocutory rulings were within his jurisdiction but I propose to set them aside in the interests of having the disputes between the parties resolved. I propose to leave the Magistrate free to assess again such issues as will remain outstanding at the end of the hearing, which seem to me will be only issues of costs.

Decision

I allow this appeal and set aside the interlocutory order as to costs. This issue is reserved to the Magistrate so that he can decide this issue again (if necessary) at the conclusion of the substantive trial.

The parties are directed to appear before the Magistrate to make a date for a hearing of all the issues between them that are still outstanding.

The Plaintiff has been successful but in the circumstances I make no order for costs on this appeal.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
07 October 2005