IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBM0004 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

C & J ENTERPRISES LTD
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

AND:

WAISAKE VUCU
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

BETWEEN:

C & J ENTERPRISES LTD
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

AND:

MELI NAIKANITAGA
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

Ms M. Muir for the Respondent
Mr D. Gordon for the Appellant

Date of Hearing:	22 July 2005
Date of Minute:	25 July 2005

MINUTE AND DIRECTION OF FINNIGAN J

This matter was called before me on Friday 22 July 2005 and I heard submissions from Counsel for both parties. It had been out before me on the application of the Respondents in the current appeal. Ms Muir reported that there had been no compliance with my ruling delivered on 25 May 2005. She sought dismissal of the appeal with costs. Mr Gordon conceded that the money had not been paid and that his client is open to contempt proceedings but submitted that the appeal should go ahead. I took time to consider the matter. This appeal and the related appeal HBA0005 of 2005 are listed for next Friday 29 July 2005. By then Counsel will have received this minute.

History

The two Respondents on 13 August 2004 were granted judgment in the Magistrate’s Court for $30,000.00 each and costs $1,500.00 each, a total of $63,000.00. The Defendant lodged an appeal in this Court and filed in the Magistrates Court an application for stay of proceedings on that judgment. That stay was refused. The Defendants, now Appellants in this Court, applied in this Court for a stay of execution of the judgment.

In my ruling on 25 May 2005 I granted the application in part. The terms of my ruling were that the $63,000.00 which included costs was to be paid into this Court and $500.00 costs on the stay application was to be paid to the Respondents’ solicitors. Certain vehicles held as security were to be released to the Appellants for their use and certain other items held as security were to be released to their rightful owners.

Payment of the costs of $500.00 was made a pre-condition of any further hearing between the parties in the appeal. I stated no time limits and set no other conditions.

Directions

It is apparent from the submissions of Counsel that the Appellant is making no move towards paying either the $63,000.00 or the $500.00. I should now set a time by which those payments must be made. I should make it clear that non payment by the Appellant jeopardizes its appeal. I should recognize from the submissions made to me before I issued my 25 May ruling that the Appellant may not be in a position to make this payments. If that is so then this matter should come quickly to a head.

1.	The Appellant is directed to pay into this Court within 10 days of the date of this minute the sum of $63,000.00.

2.	The Appellant is directed to pay to the solicitors for the Respondents within 10 days of this minute the sum of $500.00. costs.

3.	The vehicles which were available for release to the Appellant in terms of my ruling if not released are now to be retained pending determination of the appeal and execution of the Magistrate’s Court judgment.

4.	The appeal is stayed and will be dismissed if the above conditions No. 1 and 2 are not satisfied.

The matter will be called before me on Friday 29 July for confirmation that Counsel have received these directions. It will then be listed again the following Friday 5 August for reports by both Counsel about compliance by the Appellant and about the future of the appeal.

Costs on last Friday’s appearance (22 July 2005) will be Respondents’ costs, to be costs in the cause.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
25 July 2005