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

Dube v Gounder [2005] FJHC 592; HBC0061.2005 (5 August 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBC0061 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

MILTON ROSS DUBE
JOHN DEDABANOUW DUBE
NINA KATHLEEN DUBE
PLAINTIFFS

AND:

KRISTAMMA GOUNDER
1ST DEFENDANT

HARI KRISHNA GOUNDER
2ND DEFENDANT

THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES, SUVA
3RD DEFENDANT

Mr D S Naidu for the Plaintiffs
Mr G P Shankar for 1st and 2nd Defendants
Ms S. Tabaiwalu for 3rd Defendant.

Date of Hearing: 24 May 2005
Dates of Submissions: 31 May, 7 June and 14 June 2005
Date of Ruling: 05 August 2005

INTERLOCUTORY RULING OF FINNIGAN J

The Plaintiff commenced these proceedings by writ on 10 March this year. The same day I granted ex-parte interim injunctions against the Defendants and directed service of all the papers for appearances by the parties on 18 March 2005.

The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants, even as described in the writ, live in New Zealand and Australia. On 18 March 2005 Plaintiff’s Counsel acknowledged that fact and advised that Mr G P Shankar acts as Counsel for the Defendants but did not know whether the Defendants had instructed him in the present matter. I directed service on Mr G P Shankar.

Mr Shankar does not acknowledge service. To the contrary, he promptly filed on 23 March 2005 a summons seeking to have the entire write of summons set aside and in the alternative an order for security for costs since he claims the Plaintiffs live overseas.

I have had written submissions and Counsel have supplied their authorities.

The application for security for costs I hereby adjourn sine die. It will be dealt with on its merits later should that be necessary.

In the meantime it is plain the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have not been served with the proceedings. If Mr Shankar had refused service, the attention of both parties and of the Court would not have been diverted to technicalities and authorities that are no more then a distraction from the main issues.

I direct that the Plaintiff must serve the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in accordance with the High Court Rules. I make no determinations about how that is to be done. It is a matter for the Plaintiffs. The writ is alive until 9 March 2006 and I leave it to them to get on with it. Further application to the Court may be necessary.

The interim injunctions against the Defendants remain in force until further order of the Court. I make no order for costs.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
05 August 2005