THE SECRETARY OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THE PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF FIJI TO THE UNITED NATIONS
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ex parte
SAKIUSA RABUKA
ass=MsoNormal stal style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> K. Vi for the Applicant
S. Chandra for Respondents
DECISION
THE applicant is Counsellor and depepresentative of Fiji to the United Nations in New York.&nbk. Hks leave to move for Judi Judicial
Review of a decision of the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs that he return to Fiji on 27 January 2000. He also seeksay of
the dece decision. &
The proceedings were commenced on 20 January and the Attorney-General’s Chambers were served with the papers on the following day
at 3.25 p.m. Notwanding service there were was no appearance by the State on 25 ry at 9 at 9.30 a.m., the return date for the application.
It wt until 12.25 p.25 p.m. that MrCha. Chandra appeared on behalfhe StateState.&nbe had no papers and was not aware that the
matter had; had been called at 9.30. It is quite obvious from a perusal of the papeat&nbhis is an urgent gent application and the
failure of the Athe Attorney-General’s Chambers to appear on the return date is not appreci  Vuetaki was obli obliged to return
to Suva from 27 Januarynuary and the Court was obliged to defer pending work in order to hear this application.
The hearing of the application I was much assisted by careful and comprehensive written submissions filed by Mr. Vuetaki and by concise
and careful submissions by Mr. Chandra.
ass=MsoNormal smal style="tlign: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Due to the nature of the staimed I am delivering this brief decision now.
In my view some elements of the Applicant’s claim may well give to issues of public blic law acordinordingly I will grant lea him
to moto move for judicial review.
In my opinion transatters are essentially administrative and I believe that it would be wrong for the Court, art, absent manifest
error, to over-rule such decisions by Heads of Department, without a full hearing. I do not think that the Applicants financial
entitlements will in fact be lost if it is eventually shown that he should have been allowed to remain in the USA for the period
which he is cla. The questions of his leave entitlement and his chil children’s education are questions which in my view the Applicant
should have resolved long before he raised them almost at the end of the term of his posting. No explanation has been offered for
his failure to take his leave prior e end of h of his tour. In all ircumstances I do n do not think that a stay of the decision
that the Applicant must return to Fiji on 27 January 2000 would be justified.
Leave granted but stay refused.
M.D. Scott
Judge
27 January 00.
HBJ0006.00
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2000/15.html
