PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Fiji
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Fiji >> 2015 >> [2015] FJHC 696

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

  Download original PDF

Jolly Good Foods Ltd v Dominion Insurance Ltd [2015] FJHC 696; HBC13.2011 (16 September 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION


Civil Action No. HBC 13 of 2011


BETWEEN:


JOLLY GOOD FOODS LIMITED
a limited liability company having its registered office at 56 Naviti Street, Lautoka in the Republic of Fiji.
PLAINTIFF


AND:


DOMINION INSURANCE LIMITED
a limited liability company having its registered office at 231 Waimanu Road, Suva in Fiji.
DEFENDANT


BEFORE : Acting Master Vishwa Datt Sharma


COUNSEL : Mr. A. Narayan for the Plaintiffs
Mr. Ritesh Singh for the Defendant


Date of Hearing : 22nd June, 2015
Date of Ruling : 16th September, 2015


RULING


  1. INTRODUCTION
  1. The Defendant filed this SUMMONS and sought for the setting aside of the following orders made by the Master of the High Court-
    1. That the Order in terms of the Plaintiff's Summons for Amendment entered herein on 12th December, 2014 be set aside on the grounds appearing in the Affidavit of Wiliferiti Kamenio filed herein.
    2. That the proceedings of the substantive matter be stayed pending the hearing and determination of this application; and
    1. That costs of this application be costs in the cause.
  2. This application is made pursuant to the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
  3. The matter was argued in court on 22nd June, 2015 at 11.30 am.
  1. BACKGROUND.

The Defendant's case,


  1. The Defendant filed an affidavit in support deposed by Wilifereti Kamenio who stated as follows:-
  2. The Defendant in his oral submissions also submitted the following-

The Plaintiffs' Case,


  1. The Plaintiff filed an affidavit in reply and stated as follows-
  2. The Plaintiff further submitted through their written submissions as follows-
  3. On 1st December, 2014 there was no affidavit in opposition filed by the defendant and therefore the registry notified the defendant that the matter is adjourned to 12th December, 2014. On 12th December, 2014 still no affidavit was filed by the defendant and orders in terms of the summons to amend the statement of claim was granted and the case adjourned to 3rd February, 2015.
  4. The Plaintiff filed and served the amended statement of claim with a letter on the defendant on 22nd December, 2014.
  5. Again no appearance by the Defendant when the matter was called on 3rd February, 2015 but the defendant filed his application seeking setting aside of the masters orders.
  1. THE LAW.
  1. The law regarding Inherent Jurisdiction of the court is set out in Vol. 37 of Halsbury's Laws of England at paragraph 14 where it is said and I quote: -

"The overriding feature of the inherent jurisdiction of the court is that it is a part of procedural law, both civil and criminal, and not a part of substantive law; it is exercisable by summary process, without a plenary trial; it may be invoked not only in relation to parties in pending proceedings, in relation to any one, whether a party or not, and in relation to matters not raised in the litigation between the parties; it must be distinguished from the exercise of judicial discretion; and it may be exercised even in the circumstances governed by rules of court. The inherent jurisdiction of the court enables it to exercise-


(1) control over process by regulating its proceedings, by preventing the abuse of process and by compelling the observance of process,


(2) control over persons, as for example over minors and mental patients, and officers of the court, and


(3) control over the powers of inferior courts and tribunals.


In sum, it may be said that the inherent jurisdiction of the court is a virile and viable doctrine, and has been defined as being the reserve or fund of powers, a residual source of powers, which the court may draw upon as necessary whenever it is just or equitable to do so, in particular to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent improper vexation or oppression, to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial between them."


  1. Analysis and Determination
  1. I have perused the entire court file right from the time of the commencement of the proceedings to the present time of filing of the pleadings to the final impending application of the Defendant seeking setting aside of the masters orders.
  2. The proceeding was commenced by the Plaintiff by filing a Writ of Summons on 14th January, 2011.
  3. Acknowledgment of service was filed on 26th January, 2011 followed by the Defence on 18th March, 2011.
  4. Reply to Defence and the Summons for Directions were filed on 07th June, 2011.
  5. Orders on the Summons for Directions were made on 27th June, 2011.
  6. Hereinafter, the Defendant filed a 'Summons' and sought for further and better particulars of the Statement of Claim. Directions were made on this 'Summons' for parties to comply. The file record shows that directions made by the court with regards to this application were never complied with.
  7. Affidavit verifying Defendant's list of Documents was filed on 11th January, 2012, whilst the Plaintiff's list of documents was filed on 25th January, 2013.
  8. Notice of Intention to proceed was filed by the Plaintiff on 06th November, 2012 and Notice requesting for pre-trial conference filed on 11th January, 2013.
  9. Summons for dispensation of Pre- Trial conference minutes was filed by the Plaintiff on 15th February, 2013. Orders were granted and the minutes of Pre- Trial conference was only filed by the Plaintiff on 12th November, 2013. The Defendant did not endorse the PTC minutes filed by the Plaintiff.
  10. Affidavit verifying Plaintiff's list of documents filed on 25th January, 2013 and Affidavit in support of an application for a pre-trial conference to be held/dispensed with filed on 15th February, 2013.
  11. Summons for specific discovery was filed by the Defendant on 05th March, 2013.
  12. Copy pleadings filed by the Plaintiff on 18th November, 2013 together with Order 34 summons to enter this action for trial.
  13. On 07th August, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a Summons and sought leave of this court to amend the Statement of Claim and the court registry assigned 03rd September, 2014 as the returnable date on this Summons.
  14. On 03rd September, 2014, Mr. Vananalagi appeared on instructions of Mr. A.K. Narayan and was granted 21 days to file their affidavit in opposition by 24th September, 2014 and the Plaintiff 14 days thereafter for any reply. Matter adjourned to 01st December, 2014 but vacated to the 12th December, 2014. On 12th December, 2014, this court having considered that the Defendant has not filed any affidavit in opposition and further, no appearance made by Mr. Narayan or the city agent counsels, an order was granted in favour of the Plaintiff for leave to amend their Statement of Claim and serve the Defendant. The matter was then adjourned to 03rd February, 2015.
  15. Later at 10-20 am. After the case was adjourned that Mr. Vananalagi appeared on instructions from Mr. A.K. Narayan and informed court that he was before Hon. Justice Madigan.
  16. Since the Plaintiff's Counsel was not present when Mr. Vananalagi appeared to make this application, this court in the absence of the Plaintiff's counsel, could not hear Mr. Vananalagi's application rather informed Mr. Vananalagi to make a formal application and serve the other party.
  17. The Plaintiffs filed their amended statement of claim on 17th December, 2014.
  18. The Defendant filed a Summons to set aside master's order of 12th December, 2014 some 10 days from the date of the order made for the amendment of the statement of claim.
  19. The Plaintiff strongly objected to the setting aside application and the matter proceeded for a hearing on 22nd June, 2015.
  20. It can be ascertained from the Plaintiff's application seeking amendment of the Statement of Claim, that in essence the Plaintiff sought the amendment with regards to the 'Consequential Loss Policy' and on the whole, the amendment sought was not substantial and that did not tantamount to a new cause of action, but still related to the Insurance policy.
  21. Order 20 Rule 5(1) of the High Court Rules, 1988, deals with the Amendment of writ or pleadings with leave and clearly states as follows-

Subject to Order 15, rules 6, 8 and 9 and the following provisions of this rule, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff to amend his writ, or any party to amend his pleading, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner (if any) as it may direct. (Underline is mine for emphasis).


  1. Order 20 Rule 5 does not place any restriction on parties seeking amendment at any time of the proceedings, provided leave was appropriately sought for.
  2. In the present case before the court, the Plaintiff did make an application for leave to amend their Statement of Claim and served the same on the Defendant. The Defendant appeared on the returnable court date and was granted time to file an answering affidavit as sought for. Time given lapsed, the Defendant failed to comply with the Master's directions of 03rd September, 2014. The Defendant could have still come back to court and sought further extension of time to file and serve the answering affidavit to the Plaintiff's application seeking an order to amend their claim. For the reasons best known to the Defendant, they failed to do so and accordingly, the court acceded to the Plaintiff's application and granted the orders accordingly on 12th December, 2014. The Defendant or his Counsel and the city agents failed to make any appearances before this court on this day.
  3. Reference is made to the following cases which deal with amendments to applications and pleadings-

'the rule is that amendment should be allowed if necessary to enable the true issues in controversy between the parties to be resolved, and if allowance would not result in injustice to the other party not capable of being compensated by an award of costs'.


(ii) Reddy Construction Company Ltd v Pacific Gas Company Ltd (1980) FJCA 9; (1980) 26 FLR 121 (27 June 1980), where it was held-

'the primary rule is that leave may be granted at any time to attend on terms if it can be done without injustice to the other side. The general practice to be gleaned from reported cases is to allow an amendment so that the real issue may be tried, no matter that the initial steps may have failed to delineate matters. Litigation should not only be conclusive once commenced, but it should deal with the whole contest between the parties, even if it takes some time and some amendment for the crux of the matter to be distilled. The proviso, however that amendment will not be allowed which will work an injustice is also always looked at with care. So in many reported cases we see refusal to amend at a late stage particularly where a defence has been developed and it would be unfair to allow a ground to be changed'.


(iii) Peter Sujendra Sundar and anor v Chandrika Prasad Civil Appeal No. ABU 0022/97, the court of appeal at page 9 appropriately summarised the reasoning and the test for the permission to grant or refuse an amendment as follows-

'..generally, it is in the best interest of the administration of justice that the pleadings in an action should state fully and accurately the factual basis of each party's case. For that reason amendment of pleadings which will that effect are usually allowed, unless the other party will be seriously prejudiced thereby (G.L. Baker Ltd. V. Medway Building and supplies Ltd [1985]! WLR 1231 (C.A). The test to be applied is whether the amendment is necessary in order to determine the real controversy between the parties and does not result in injustice to other parties; if the test is met, leave to amend may be given even at a very late stage of the trial (Elders Pastoral Ltd v. Marr [1987] NZCA 18; (1987) 2 PRNZ 383 (C.A).' (emphasis is added).


  1. The court record confirms that the Defendant was granted 21 days time on or before 24th September, 2014 to file their affidavit in opposition to the Plaintiffs leave application to amend the Statement of Claim. After the matter was adjourned to 01st December, 2014 and vacated to 12th December, still this court discovered that neither there was any appearance by Counsel for the Defendant nor any affidavit in opposition was filed. The Plaintiff Counsel then made an application to this court and sought for the orders be granted in terms of their pending application. The court then acceded to the Plaintiffs application and granted the order for leave accordingly.
  2. Reference is made to the following cases-

'the Plaintiff's seek leave of the court to amend its Writ. The Writ was filed in October, 2007. Pleadings have closed and the matter was listed for trial on 18 & 19 of October, 2011. At this stage amendment of pleadings is not available as of right. Undoubtedly, the Plaintiff may amend its pleadings with leave of this court'.


(ii) At paragraph 16 in the same case, the court said –

'an amendment may be allowed notwithstanding that the effect of the amendment will be to add or substitute a new cause of action arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action in respect of which relief has already been claimed in the action by the party applying for leave to make the amendment, see O.20, r.5 (5)'. Hon Judge granted the order in terms of the application.


  1. The Defendant deposed in their affidavit in support of their setting aside application that the Plaintiff were bringing in a new cause of action in the matter and therefore the master's order should be set aside.
  2. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Plaintiff made it very clear in his submissions that he was not bringing in a new cause of action rather sought for an amendment was made in terms of the 'Consequential Loss Policy' which was not in Plaintiffs possession at the time of filing and commencement of the proceedings by Writ action.
  3. Amendment was later sought when the Plaintiff discovered that there was a 'Consequential Loss Policy' issued by the Defendant Company and was very much still effective.
  4. What is sought here is not to introduce a new cause of action, but to include the 'Consequential Loss Policy' into the Plaintiffs Statement of Claim, not covered for in the original Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff.
  5. The Defendant will be able, of course, to plead every defence that is relevant to the Amended Statement of Claim. This includes its right and capacity to plead in terms of the 'Consequential Loss Policy 'as well. Not only that, the Amended Defence will allow the Defendant to incorporate new paragraphs together with any new provisions required to be incorporated in consequence of the amendments made to the original Statement of Claim by the Plaintiff.
  6. The issues raised by the Defendant herein require a proper hearing in the substantive action, so that the matters raised by the Defendant can be agitated and addressed by both parties and so that the Court has an opportunity to address these arguments and issues in the course of hearing the substantive action in its entirety.
  7. As to the issue of prejudice raised by the Defence Counsel, if amendment allowed was not set aside by their application before the court, the amendment allowed does not bring in a new cause of action, since the same has been carried out under the 'Consequential Loss Policy".
  8. The Defendant will be at liberty to counter the amendment upon filing an amended Defence to the Amended Statement of Claim. It will be borne in mind of the Defence Counsel representing the Defendant Insurance Company that he was aware of the "Consequential Loss Policy" at the time of service of the Writ of Summons by the Plaintiff, and therefore should have divulged this information on the 'Consequential Loss Policy" to the Plaintiff, rather than the same being surfaced at the later stages of the hearing of this case.
  9. I find there will be no prejudice caused to the Defendant if the Plaintiffs leave to amend the Statement of Claim is not set aside by this court.
  10. Accordingly, I make the following final orders.

Final Orders


  1. The Defendant's Summons to Set Aside Master's Orders of 12th December, 2014 is struck out accordingly.
  2. The Plaintiff to File and Serve an amended Statement of Claim within 14 days from today.
  3. The Defendant to File and Serve their Amended Statement of Defence within 14 days thereafter upon service of the Plaintiffs Amended Statement of Claim.
  4. The Plaintiff to File and Serve any Reply to the Amended Defence within 14 days thereafter.
  5. Each party to bear their own costs.
  6. Matter stands adjourned to a later date for further directions

Dated at Suva this 16th of September, 2015.


VISHWA DATT SHARMA
ACTING MASTER HIGH COURT, SUVA


cc: Mr. A Narayan of A K Lawyers, Ba.
Mr. Ritesh Singh of Sherni & Co., Suva.

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2015/696.html