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

Allen v Fiji Rugby Union [2012] FJHC 1239; HBC76.2012 (27 July 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

HBC No. 76 of 2012

BETWEEN:

OLAF ALLEN of Lot 38 Bulei Road, Laucala Beach Estate,
Suva.
PLAINTIFF

AND:

FIJI RUGBY UNION having its registered office at Rugby House,
35 Gordon Street, Suva.
DEFENDANT

BEFORE: Master Deepthi Amaratunga

COUNSEL: Mr. Lateef F. for the Plaintiff
Mr. Lajendra for the Defendant

Date of Hearing: 20^th July, 2012
Date of Decision: 27^th July, 2012

DECISION

A. INTRODUCTION

1. The Defendant The Fiji Rugby Union conducted a lottery and the tickets were initially sold at $20 and later at discounted price at $10. The lottery was drawn and the 1st prize 'winner' was the Plaintiff, but this draw was not carried out properly and the Fiji Commerce Commission obtained an injunction restraining the Defendant from distribution of the prices. The Fiji Commerce Commission alleged that the purported draw was not in conformity with the Commerce Commission Decree and more specifically because the tickets were sold at two different prices and also all the tickets that were sold had not been included in the draw. After successfully obtaining the interim injunction against Defendant, the parties to the action being the Defendant and the Fiji Commerce Commission, arrived at a settlement and they consented to re-draw the lottery, and it is yet to be performed. The Plaintiff is claiming in this action for sum of $100,000 as the first prize winner of the lottery which is now the Defendant is alleging null and void. The Defendant admits the fact that Plaintiff was the 'winner' of the purported draw, but state that all the tickets that were sold at $20 was not included in the draw making the draw improper and the Plaintiff does not derive rights from the purported draw as it is null and void. The Plaintiff is seeking summary judgment for the sum of first prize, but if the lottery is not conducted in accordance with the law, he cannot derive any right to first prize.
   

B. THE ANALYSIS

2. The Plaintiff seeks summary judgment to recover the money as the first price winner of a lottery. The Lottery was conducted by the Defendant, and it was also drawn and the Plaintiff was informed as the winner of the first prize, but the Commerce Commission investigated the manner in which the purported draw was carried out and obtained an injunction against the Defendant from distributing the prize money to all the winners of the purported draw, including the Plaintiff.
   
3. The interim injunction was granted in pursuant to the decision of the High Court in the following manner
   

'To restrain the Respondent whose registered office is at Rugby House, 35, Gordon Street, Suva from distributing the winning Prizes to those winners whose names were drawn on 30th December, 2010 for the Lottery ticket in support of the Flying Fijians to the World Cup until they have responded to the Orders made by the Commission dated 1st January, 2011 and after the Applicant has made a decision on the same'

4. The action filed by the Fiji Commerce Commission also sought declaration to the effect that the Defendant has contravened Section 75, 76, 77(1) (e), 83(1) and 85(1) of the Commerce Commission Decree 2010, but the action did not proceeded beyond the interim injunction stage as the parties to the said action arrived at a settlement to conduct a fresh draw in accordance with the law. So, no determination was made on the said issues.
   
5. The Plaintiff in this action claiming the first prize, and the annexed "B" dated 21st January, 2011, to the affidavit in opposition state as follows
   

'This is to confirm that the Fiji Rugby Union Grand Lottery was drawn Thursday 30th December, at Sukuna Park in Suva.

The winning ticket number for 1st prize is 268.

The matter is currently being investigated by the Commerce Commission and there's also pending Court proceedings.'

6. This is the communication that the Plaintiff is relying on and the Defendant's position is self explanatory in that letter. Any lottery or result of this nature is subject to laws of the country and if carried out in contravention of relevant laws that needs to be nullified and redrawn. This is what the Defendant who conducted the lottery is alleging in the statement of defence. The Plaintiff cannot insist on the earlier draw if it was conducted in contravention of law.
   
7. In the statement of defence at paragraph 6 it is stated as follows
   

'6.the Defendant says that the draw was null and void for the following reasons

a. Not all Lottery tickets purchased were placed in the draw from which the winners were announced; and

b. The lottery ticket price was reduced from $20 to $10'

8. In the circumstances this application cannot be granted on the summary judgment as the issues raised in the Defence needs further investigation by the court as the action filed by the Fiji Commerce Commission did not proceeded to trial and ended in a settlement, where the Defendant consented to conduct a second draw, under certain conditions stipulated in the said settlement with the Commerce Commission.
   
9. The Plaintiff do not derive a right to claim first prize from the contractual obligation that is created by purchasing a ticket. The contractual obligation is to conduct the lottery in accordance with the law of the country and any draw in contravention of the law will derive any right.
   
10. The scope of the summary judgment is well settled and I need not elaborate here as it is only in a case where the Defence is doomed to fail that summary judgment is granted. This has been explained also as no bona fide defence, no reasonable ground of defence, no fairly arguable defence, but the salient feature is the court should be certain that the Plaintiff will succeed at the end.
    
11. The Defence indicate more than an arguable case and by any stretch of imagination one cannot at this stage state that the Defence is doomed to fail. Clearly the application for summary judgment should be struck off the cost of this application is cost in the cause.
    

C. CONCLUSION

12. Any prize or result of a lottery is subject to the law of the county and if the laws are not been adhered the results of that draw cannot derive a right to claim the prizes. The Plaintiff does not derive a right to claim the 1st prize if the purported draw was not carried out properly. The Defendant alleged that the purported draw is null and void for two reasons. In the circumstances the Plaintiff cannot seek summary judgment and the summons for summary judgment is struck off. The cost of this application is cost in the cause.
    

D. FINAL ORDER

a. The summons for summary judgment is struck off.

b. The cost of this application is cost in the cause.

Dated at Suva this 27th day of July, 2012.

Master Deepthi Amaratunga
High Court, Suva