IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
Supreme Court, Nuku'alofa

C 72/2001

Paea

v

Prisons Court of Inquiry anors

Ward CJ 
29 August 2002; 2 September 2002 

Practice and procedure – ill-drafted statement of claim – parts struck out 
Costs – ill-drafted statement of claim – costs awarded to defendant 

The plaintiff was a prison officer and brought this action in relation to his suspension and punishment for various prison offences. The statement of claim was rambling and confused. It dealt with many matters which were not relevant to the remedy sought and a large part questioned the merits of the decision of the court of inquiry.

Held: 

1. The court did not consider there was any cause of action revealed in paragraph 1(ii) and it was struck out. 

2. The court of inquiry has power to hear all charges of serious breaches of any prison rule. It was clearly for that court to decide whether any breach of the prison rules was serious but that did not bear on its right to entertain summonses for such offences. That part of the claim was frivolous and was struck out. 

3. The question whether the court of inquiry had the power to commit to prison for a breach of rule 89 and the suggestion that the Prison rules were invalid were matters on which the plaintiff may seek review and the case was to proceed on those matters only. As they were matters of law the court directed that the case proceed by written submissions on those points. The plaintiff was to file submissions within 28 days and the respondent submissions in reply within 28 days thereafter.  

4. Although they have only succeeded in part in their application, as the statement of claim was badly drafted and ill-conceived, the costs were awarded to the defendants. 

Statute considered: 
Prisons Act (Cap 36)

Rules considered: 
 Prison Rules 

Counsel for plaintiff: Mr Fifita 
Counsel for defendants: Mr Kefu 

Ruling

The plaintiff was a prison officer and brings this action in relation to his suspension and punishment for various prison offences. 

The original writ was filed in January 2001 as an application for leave to seek judicial review. Leave was granted exparte but following an application to strike the pleading out, the plaintiff was ordered to file an amended statement of claim setting out the basis of his claim clearly. 

That statement of claim was so confusing and unclear that the court directed a clear statement of claim be filed within 14 days or the action would be struck out. 

It is not surprising that, following service of that fresh statement of claim, the defendants renew their application to strike out. The statement of claim is rambling and confused. It deals with many matters which cannot be considered relevant to the remedy sought and a large part questions the merits of the decision of the court of inquiry. 

The prayer seeks: 

1. "Declaration that: 

(i) Decision of the Court to commit the plaintiff to prison for breaching section 89 of the Prison Rules is ultra vires, invalid, and of no legal effect. 

(ii) Section 88 of the Prison Rules is unreasonable 

(iii) The court has no jurisdiction to hear Summonses nos 2, 3, 5, 6, of 2000 

(iv) Prison Rules are exfacie invalid and the Court cannot enforce them. 

2. A writ or an order in the nature of Certiorari to quash the decision of the court with regard to the summonses" 

3. Costs. 

Doing the best I can in the face of such pleadings and confining my consideration to the matters in the prayer, I do not consider there is any cause of action revealed in paragraph 1(ii) and I strike it out. 

1(iii) is based on paragraph 35 of the statement of claim which states: 

"The court has no jurisdiction to entertain summonses nos 2, 3, 5, 6, of 2000 for they were petty natures." 

Mr Fifita tells the Court that is based on the words of section 15 of the Prison Act which allows the establishment of a court of inquiry to inquire into any charges of breach of discipline or offences brought against any prison officer "except those of a petty nature the punishment for which may be provided for by rules under this Act". 

I cannot accept that covers this case. The summonses referred to are all for offences under the Prison Rules and section 16 gives the court power to hear all charges of serious breaches of any prison rule. It is clearly for the court to decide whether any breach of the prison rules is serious but that does not bear on its right to entertain summonses for such offences. I regard that part of the claim as frivolous and strike it out. 

The application for an order of Certiorari under paragraph 2 is based on that declaration and I strike it out also. 

The remaining matters, namely the question whether the court of inquiry has the power to commit to prison for a breach of rule 89 and the suggestion that the Prison rules are invalid are matters on which the plaintiff may seek review and the case shall proceed on those matters only. 

However, they are matters of law and I shall direct that the case proceed by written submissions on those points. 

The plaintiff shall file submissions within 28 days and the respondent submissions in reply within 28 days thereafter. I shall then list the case for hearing on those submissions. 

Although they have only succeeded in part in their application, the costs of this hearing, arising as it did from the badly drafted and ill-conceived statement of claim, shall be to the defendants in any event.