IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Judicial Review Action No.: 39 of 2007

BETWEEN:

THE STATE

v.

HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT
RATU JOSEFA ILOILOVATU ULUIVUDA and the
INTERIM ATTORNEY GENERAL
AIYAZ SAYED-KHAIYUM
On behalf of the Interim Government
Respondents

EX-PARTE:

RATU OVINI BOKINI
RATU SAKIUSA MAKUTU
RATU APENISA CAKOBAU and
RATU RATAVO LALABALAVU
Applicants

Mr. K. Vuataki and Mr. S. Komaisavai for Applicants
Mr. A.K. Narayan and Mr. S. Sharma for Respondents

Date of Hearing: 22nd February 2008
Date of Decision: 6th March 2008

DECISION ON TRANSFER/STAY

The present application by the respondents seeks to have this action transferred to another Judge namely Honourable Mr. Justice Pathik who is presently dealing with a Constitutional Redress matter. Alternatively they seek that the present proceedings be stayed pending the determination of the Constitutional Redress Application. The present proceedings are judicial review proceedings.

The court can under Order 4 Rule 1 stay proceedings before it pending the outcome of some other proceedings. The other proceeding may be a test case. Further there may be common issues like interpretation of a provision in a statute. The court has the discretion to either stay or not to stay.

I refuse the application for transfer because it impinges on the case allocation system in the civil registry. The fundamental basis of that allocation is to ensure parity of work between judges. Applications like the present case derail that process.

As far as stay is concerned, the present application is a judicial review matter which deals with process not merits. Judicial Review proceedings are generally dealt expeditiously as they deal with administration. In the present case there are issues of wide public interest and such matters cannot be left in a limbo. The issue before me in the judicial review is one central narrow question and that is whether the Fijian Affairs (Composition of the Great Council of Chiefs) Regulations 2007 are legally valid or not. That is the key question despite a number of declarations being sought. The answer to that question will virtually decide the rest of the declarations.

The defendant applicants say that there is a common question of locus in both proceedings. I note the issue of locus is raised in the present proceedings before me. From what I gather from the submissions is that the applicants have no locus as their appointment as members of the Great Council of Chiefs was made pursuant to a Regulation which itself was invalid. That again is purely a narrow question of statutory interpretation.

I have deliberately kept the reasons as short as I can so that I do not stray into substantive matters before me or before Justice Pathik. My view is that these judicial review proceedings should be disposed of as quickly as possible instead of waiting for the outcome of the other action.

Accordingly the application is dismissed with costs summarily fixed in the sum of $500.00 to be paid in fourteen (14) days.

[Jiten Singh]
JUDGE

At Suva
6th March 2008