Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Timothy v Matevulu College [2001] VUSC 69; Civil Case 013 of 2001 (9 July 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JURISDICTION)

Civil Case 3 of 2001

BETWEEN:

JOE TIMOTHY and ISAIAH ISAAC

Applicants

AND:

MATEVULU COLLEGE

First Respondent

AND:

ass="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">: 1"> MATEVULU SCHOOL COUNCIL

Second Respondent

AND:

MINISTER OF EDUCATspan>

Third Respondent

Date: 9^th July, 2001, 8:30 a.m.

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Clerk: Ms Cynthia Thomas

Counsels: Mr Hillary Toa of Public Solicitor’s Office for the Applicants.

Mr Bill B. Tamwata of Counsel for the First & Second Respondents.

Mr Tom Joe of State Law Office for the Third Respondent.

1">

Mr Toa: ; &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nbp; Cap; Case is liss listedtror trial today but Mr Joe has indicated to us that the Third Respondent has not been served with documents.

Mr Joe: &nbbsp;&&bsp;;&bspp;&bssp;&bsp; We have been disadvantagedtaged by non-service of documents. That leaves us in difficulties at unwe re sewith all relevant documents, we cannot usefully address the the mattematter. Mrr. Mr Toa wants to proceed but we submit that since there is an appeal before the Teaching Service Commission it is only proper that that avenue is followed to the end before the Court deals with the Application. On that basis we seek Directions that the matter be adjourned until TSC has dealt with and completed the Applicants’ appeal.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -72.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Mr Tamwata: &nbspagree the submission bion by Mr Joe. We say it is pros proper for TSC to deal first with the appeals of the Application b the hears their Application for Judicial Review. In the meantime the Applicanticants mays may wish to seek employment.

Mr Toa in reply:  p; &nnsp;&&nsp; &nbp; The case doesinot ve TSC. TSC. Applicants are only challenging the decision of the Minister to suspend and the basis of that decision. Illy aial pwas to determine the Applicants’ case; instead the Mihe Ministenister wasr was involved and he made the decision to suspend them. We submit this Court has the jurisdiction to hear their Application. We therefore object to any adjournments.

Mr Tamwata: &nnbsp; Refers the Court tort to Annexure “10” of Joe Timothy’s affidavit. It is his letter of appeal to TSC against decision of the Minister. Submits it is proper for TSC to first deal with appeal.

Mr Toa: &nbbsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;& Applicants chts challenge the basis of the Minister’s authority to write letter. If court finds the suspension proper then TSC can go ahead and deal with the appeallicanbmit suspensionnsion is n is not prot proper. If it is allowed that TSC first hears the appeal then the implication is that suspension is proper.

Court:  p; &nsp; &nbbssp; Firstly the courtcourt cant cannot proceed to hear this Application today or this week. This week is allocated for a -hearminall.<

Secondly it appears to me that the Applicants have only themselves to blame for putting themselves in this situation. They instigated the action by voluntarily resigning their positions. They must now realize that they have to face and live with the consequences of their own decisions and actions.

In my view this matter must be adjourned unti has dealt with the Applicants’ appeals. The Court wirt will review decisions as a whole, not in isolation.

Mr Toa: &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp; Tse Appe Applicants are on suspension without salaries. One of them has a child in school who no longer attends school because of this. Case should be hwithieasontime. We have writtenitten to t to the Rehe Respondents but have received no responses. As regards employment, the Applicants are aware of the opportunity provided by law to seek gainful employment whilst on suspension. These Applicants are adversely affected by this case and they would rather the Court deals with their Application before exercising that right.

Court: &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp; Isam inam inclined to adjourned the hearing of the Application for 21 days from today. This will allow TSC to complete the appeal. If withis p TSC ot dealt with their appeals, the mate matter wter will bill be listed for hearing and parties will be formally notified.

Mr Joe: & &nbssp;&ssp; &nbs are en the same positiosition as n as Mr Bani.

>

Court: &nbbsp;&&nsp;;&nsp; &nsp; &nnbp;& This matter is adjourned tned to Thursday 9^th August, 2001 at 8 O’clock in the morniependn the outof theal, y be necessary for for certain amendments to be made. ade. CounsCounsel foel for ther the Plai Plaintiff would look into it and take appropriate steps.

DATED at Luganville, this 9^th day of July, 2001.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

lass="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; ter; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Judge