Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Wati v Baledrokadroka [2005] FJHC 244; HBA0015.2004 (20 January 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.: HBA0015 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

PREM WATI
Appellant

AND:

EMOSI BALEDROKADROKA
Respondent

Counsel: Ms P. Narayan – for Appellant
Mr. A. Seru – for Respondent

Hearing: Thursday 20th January, 2005
Judgment: on notice

JUDGMENT

Background

This is an appeal by the defendant respondent against an interlocutory decision under the Limitation Act (Cap. 35) and the Magistrates Courts (Civil Jurisdiction) Decree 1988.

The defendant in the original proceedings and on appeal claimed that the cause of action in tort for false accusation arose in 1995. He submitted that the proceedings filed in July 2002, exceeded the six-year limitation period. The defendant further submitted that the claim was statute barred as the Magistrates Court did not have jurisdiction to consider cases of malicious prosecution, libel and slander.

The plaintiff in opposing the defendant’s application and on appeal submitted that the cause of action did not arise at the point of accusation in 1995 but at the point of hearing the criminal matter on the 19th of April 1999. Accordingly, he argued, the filing of proceedings in July 2002 was well within the limitation period. The plaintiff further submitted that the cause of action was for false accusation not malicious prosecution libel or slander and that therefore the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction.

The learned Magistrate adequately summarized the cases for the defendant and plaintiff in his ruling (pages 33 and 34 of the record). The ruling addressed the limitation argument and made a correct finding that the cause of action didn’t arise until that point in time where it first became clear that the original accusation was false. The first available point in time when the plaintiff could have known about the false accusation was when the complainant defendant gave her evidence on oath and made the falsehood patently clear.

However, the learned Magistrate did not deal with the issue of the characterization of the proceedings. There was no decision as to whether or not the court had jurisdiction.

Decision

Counsel advised that they were content to have their appeal case rest on the original submissions given before the learned Magistrate. This decision is to be given on notice.

The Statement of Claim is poorly drafted, contains insufficient information and only barely engages the defendant in a non-specified cause of action based loosely on a claim in tort. The learned Magistrate and I are to infer that this is a claim based on an allegation that the complainant defendant lied to the police about the plaintiff’s involvement in a crime of violent robbery.

This appeal does not require me to go beyond that inference. It would be wrong of me to offer comment on how misguided the proceedings may be and I refrain from doing so. That is a matter for the learned Magistrate upon any subsequent application the defendant may choose to make. I am discreetly engaged on an appeal concerning the Limitation Act Jurisdiction and the court’s interlocutory ruling.

Limitation Act (Cap. 35)

The learned Magistrate was correct in her decision that the cause of action discernable on the writ arose at a point in time when the plaintiff first became aware of the possibility of a false accusation. The statements made on the 19th of April 1999 in the course of the criminal trial made the possibility of such an action patently clear. That was the first occasion that the plaintiff might have known of the alleged false accusation. That was the point in time when the cause of action arose. I accordingly agree with the finding of the learned Magistrate in that regard. The claim was filed in time.

Jurisdiction

The learned Magistrate did not specifically deal with the matter of jurisdiction. For completeness I will. Although the proceedings are poorly drafted it is clear that they are not bought as an action in defamation or for malicious prosecution. If the proceedings survive it will only be upon some properly drafted pleading based on a tort of false accusation.

I find at least in theory that the Magistrates Court has the ability to adjudge a general tortious action of that kind. Whether or not such a tortious action exists or can be created out of these facts and successfully pleaded are matters best left to the judgment of the learned Magistrate.

Conclusion

For these reasons the defendant’s appeal is dismissed. Costs are fixed at $500.00. The matter is returned to the learned Magistrate for the continuation of proceedings.

Gerard Winter
JUDGE

At Suva
.................., 2005