IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0204 OF 2005L

BETWEEN:

PAULO MALO RADRODRO
Plaintiff

AND:

SIONE HATU TIAKIA,
(Chairman) Trustee of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, sued on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose address is L.D.S. Service Centre, P.O. Box 90, Suva
1st Defendant

AND:

TIPO SOLOMONE,
(Counsellor) Trustee of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, sued on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose address is L.D.S. Church College, Tamavua, Suva
2nd Defendant

AND:

TANIELA WAKOLO,
(Counsellor) Trustee of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, sued on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose address is L.D.S. Service Centre, P.O. Box 90, Suva
3rd Defendant

Mr. F. Khan o/i from Mr. M.K. Sahu Khan for the plaintiff/respondent
Mr. F. Hanif for the defendants/applicants

Date of Hearing: 28 October 2005
Date of Ruling: 11 November 2005

RULING

The defendants by Summons filed on the 2nd August 2005 seek to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim pursuant to Order 18 Rule 18 (1) (a) of the High Court Rules or alternatively pursuant to Order 18 Rule 18 (1) (b) of the High Court Rules on the grounds respectively that the plaintiff’s claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant has filed written submissions and has addressed the Court in respect to those submissions. The respondent has made oral submissions to the Court.

The respondent by his amended writ of summons and statement of claim contends that he has made various inventions, which he gave to the defendants for evaluation and says that the inventions have not been valued and that they have not been protected, as a result of which, the respondent claims that he has suffered mental stress and depression. His family has loss faith in him that he had lost his discoveries.

The respondent claims in total $3 billion from the applicant. This amount being respectively $1 billion for his aircraft technology “JBXIII” and $1 billion for his HIV/AIDS medications “Aids Vax” and a further $1 billion for his HIV/AIDS medication “TZ20”.

The Law

The principles applicable to applications of this type have been considered by the Court on many occasions. Those principles include:

(a)	A reasonable cause of action means a caution of action with some chance of success when only the allegations and pleadings are considered – Lord Pearson in Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association [1970] WLR 688.

(b)	Frivolous and vexation is said to mean cases which are obviously frivolous or vexatious or obviously unsustainable – Lindley LJ in Attorney General of Duchy of Lancaster v L.N.W. Ry [1892] 3 Ch. 274 at 277.

(c)	It is only in plain and obvious cases that a recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule – Lindley MR in Hubbuck v Wilkinson [1899] 1 Q.B. 86.

(d)	The purpose of the Courts jurisdiction to strike out pleading is two fold. Firstly is to protect its own processes and scarce resources from being abused by hopeless cases. Second and equally importantly, it is to ensure that it is a matter of justice, defendants are permitted to defend the claim fairly and not subjected to the expense inconvenience in defending an unclear or hopeless case.

(e)	“The first object of pleadings is to define and clarify with position the issues and questions which are in dispute between the parties and for determination by the Court. Fair and proper notice of the case an opponent is required to meet must be properly stated in the pleadings so that the opposing parties can bring evidence on the issues disclosed – ESSO Petroleum Company Limited v Southport Corporation [1956] A.C. 218 at 238” – James M. Ah Koy v Native Land Trust Board & Ors – Civil Action No. HBC0546 of 2004.

(f)	 A dismissal of proceedings “often be required by the very essence of justice to be done” -Lord Blackburn in Metropolitan v Pooley [1885] 10 OPP Cas. 210 at 221 – so as to prevent parties being harassed and put to expense by frivolous, vexatious or hopeless allegation – Lorton LJ in Riches v Director of Public Prosecutions (1973) 1 WLR 1019 at 1027.

The Claim

The respondent in paragraph 17 of the statement of claim pleads or more particular particularizes alleged negligence. Apart from this pleading, there does not appear to be any pleading with respect to an alleged duty of care owed to the respondent by the applicants.

It is of course insufficient to merely plead that the defendant is negligent unless it is pleaded that the defendant owed to the plaintiff a duty of care which has been breached by the negligent action.

The plaintiff/respondent in the pleading appears to allege that the defendants have failed to secure a copyright with respect to his inventions and that this was an act of negligence on the part of the applicant/defendants. This in itself would appear not to create a cause of action as the plaintiff/respondent would own any copyright and it is not pleaded that any other person has purportedly coveted that copyright and further that any such coveting or breach of the alleged copyright has occurred as a result of the negligence of the defendants.

Conclusion

Whilst it is only in “plain and obvious cases” that the provisions of Order 18 should be used to strike out a plaintiff’s claim, I am satisfied that this is in fact such an instance. Clearly the plaintiff/respondent by his amended writ of summons and statement of claim has failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action which in itself leads to the pleading being scandalous and frivolous and perhaps vexatious and in the circumstances therefore, there is no alternate but to grant the orders sought. The respondent’s statement of claim is wholly struck out.

The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs as assessed or agreed.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
11 November 2005