IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)
CCase No.25 of 1998
BETWEEN:
LEONG MANSAN
Plaintiff
AND:
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
BRUN
Defendant
Date of Hearing: Friday 14th September, 5:30
p.m.
Coram: Before Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak
Ms Cynthia Thomas
Counsel: Mr Bill B. Tamwata for the Plaintiff
Mr Hillary Toa for the Defendant
RULING
On an ex parte summons heard inter partes the plaintiff
sought orders that the defendant be brought before the Court to be dealt
with for contempt of the Orders of the Court dated 5th July,
2001. It reads in paragraph (2)(iv) as follows:-
“Mr Ben shall vacate the property eliver up vacant
possession of all that land and premises comprised in Leasehold Titl Title
NO.04/2641/003 to Mr Leong Mansan within 21 days from today” (being 5th
July, 2001).
The application is supported by two affidavits of Mr
Mansan of 24th August, 2001 anup>th September, 2001 2001
respectively. The plaintiff’s evidence which is unchallenged is that –
(a) p; &nbp;&nbp; p; &nnsp;&&nsp;
p;
He wentheo the property on 27th July, 2001, two days after
the expiration of 21 days and found the property still l and ed up (paragraph 5 of the First affi
affidavit)
(b) p; &nnsp;&&nsp; &nbp; &nbbp;&n p;
On the the same day he instructed his solicitor and they entered the
property togethth thintifmployfter ing ohe
lock
and rand replaceplacing it with his own. A letter was wris written tten by hiby his sols solicitor to
the defendant’s solicitor
on 31st July 2001 reminding them if the
terms if the Orders and making further concessions to the defendant to
remove his cattle
within 7 days. (Annexure “B”)
(c) &nbbsp;& p;&bsp;   &nnbsp;;&nspp;&nsp;
sp;
The dent’dant’s solicitor responded in a handten l dated 2nd
August, 2000 making certain proposals in respect of t of the rehe removal of the
defendant’s cattle which was causreat
difficulties or hardshardship to him –
(Annex “C”)
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(d) &nbssp;&nnbsp;&nsp;&nsp;&nbp; p;&nbbsp;&nsp; &nsp;
th August, 2001
within the given 7 days rejecting all the offers made by the defendant, and
amongr thiutting the dthe defendant
on notice that he would seek seek orde orders
for contempt of court on 10th August, 2001.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(e) &nbbsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;& &nbbsp;
Than>The defendant’s solicitor did not respond until 31st
ugust1 (Ane “A”the piff’snd affidavIn the
second paragraph oaph of thaf that lett letter tter the dehe defendafendant innt
indicated that he had a
further claim to which the Plaintiff had made no response and that he
intended to apply to have
the orders of 5th July, 2001 varied. In
the second last paragraph of that letter it is stated as follows:-
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(f) &&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp; &nbp;
On 2>st sup> August, 2001 the Plaintiff togewith ice
Officd hiscitorn entered the property to find that his ohis own
wn
l lock
hock had bead been reen removed and replaced by another. That lock was again removed
and replaced by the plaintiff. (paragraphs
10, 11, 12 & 13).
(g) &nbssp; &nsp;&nbp; &nbssp;&nnsp;&&nsp; &nsp;
Nay being a We a Wednesday the Plaintiff went to the property to
plant seeds and to his surprise found that his chain and loc
been remand replaced by a new chain and lock which was nailed into the pthe post
ost
(paragraph 14).
The defendant has never appealed the judgment of the
Court. And he has not made application ve the Orders varied. When When
therefore he wrote to give notice to the plaintiff not to enter the property
until his claims are settled, he had blatantly
defied the orders of this
Court. His actions are clearly actions done in deliberate defiance of lawful
Orders of the
Court and amount to the grossest disregard for the Court and
our legal system. Those actions clearly warrant the necessity
of bringing
the defendant before the court to answer personally for contempt of court
order and to show cause why he
should not be sent to prison for such
contempt.
Now therefore the Court Orders that –
 
(1)
(2) &nbbsp; &bsp;&nbp; &nbss;&nbbsp;&&nsp; &nsp;
Tfendant, his his agents, servants, families and relatives and
friends and restrained from fr actwhichrfere withause harat
to the plainplaintiff tiff and/oand/or his agents, servants or employees, ees, and tand to
o
permit the plaintiff to quietly
enjoy the property.
(3) & p;&nbbsp;&bsp;&nbp;&nbp; ;&nbssp;
A copy ofpy of this Order be served on the Officer-In-e of olice
(Northern) in Luganville.
(4) &nnbsp;; &nbs;&nbs; ; &n sp;
Than>The defe defendant pays the costs of and incident this application.
DATED at Luganville this 17th day of
September1.
/p>
BY THE COURT
OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2001/102.html
