|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL ACTION NO: HBC 337 of 2014
BETWEEN : ALIZ PACIFIC Chartered Accountant and Business Advisors of 8th Floor, BSP Life Centre, 3 Scott Street, Suva.
FIRST PLAINTIFF
AND : DR. NUR BANO ALI of 3 Scott Street, Suva, Chartered Accountant.
SECOND PLAINTIFF
AND : THE AUDITOR-GENERAL OF FIJI of 6 – 8th Floor, Ratu Sukuna House, 2 – 10 Mc Arthur Street, Suva.
FIRST DEFENDANT
AND : THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF FIJI of Level 7, Suvavou House, Victoria Parade, Suva.
SECOND DEFENDANT
BEFORE : Justice Riyaz Hamza
COUNSEL : Mr. Devanesh Sharma for the First and Second Plaintiffs
Mr. Peter Knight for the First Defendant
JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application made by the Plaintiffs, by way of a Writ of Summons.
[2] In the Statement of Claim attached thereto the Plaintiffs, inter alia, submit as follows:
(1) The First Plaintiff was at all material times a Chartered Accounting Firm.
(2) The Second Plaintiff is a Chartered Accountant and the Managing Partner of the First Plaintiff Firm.
(3) The First Defendant was at all material times the Auditor General of Fiji.
(4) The Second Plaintiff was joined as a Defendant pursuant to the State Proceedings Act (Chapter 17) and by virtue of the fact that the Claim is against the statutory authority and the contents of the Auditor General’s 2010 Report also affects the Government of Fiji.
(5) The Plaintiffs, (then known as BDO Aliz), began working with Rewa Co-operative Dairy Company Limited (“RCDC”) in February 2009 and was first appointed by the RCDC Board as Consultants to manage a Strategic Workshop and draft a Strategic Plan for RCDC.
(6) On 20 November 2009, the RCDC Board confirmed the continued engagement of the First Plaintiff as Consultants to facilitate the Re-structure of RCDC and to implement and Re-structure Report which the Plaintiffs had prepared in November 2009.
(7) The Second Plaintiff was confirmed by RCDC as the Lead Consultant and she was to be part of the Re-structure Project Team that included two Senior Management Staff of RCDC (CEO and Financial Controller/Company Secretary).
(8) The RDCD Board Resolution of 20 November 2009, also required the Plaintiffs to determine the financing required to implement the re-structure plan and present to various financiers.
(9) In April 2010, upon an invitation by RCDC to the Government, the then Prime Minister of Fiji and the Minister for Trade met with RCDC Officials and the Project Team and agreed in principle to support the RCDC re-structure and agreed to finance the plan. The Government of Fiji had been providing financial assistance to RCDC both direct and indirect in the form of milk subsidies and duty relief on its imports.
(10) On 27 April 2010 the Cabinet approved the financing of the re-structure of RCDC with $500,000.00 being the allocated amount.
(11) The Cabinet Decision noted that the Plaintiffs were already appointed by RCDC as Consultants in the Project Team and proposed that a representative from the Ministry of Trade and Industry as well as the Chairman of the RCDC become part of the Re-structure Project Team.
(12) A Report dated 5 May 2010, on the Corporate Re-structure Implementation Plan was prepared by the Plaintiffs and this Report set out the processes to be followed for the proposed re-structure of RCDC and also allocated the cost of the exercise.
(13) The Government of Fiji then entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the First Plaintiff, dated 9 July 2010, to implement the re-structure of RCDC upon their request. The amount allocated by the Government of Fiji for the proposed re-structure was $500,000.00.
(14) The said Memorandum of Agreement was drawn up by the Office of the Solicitor General of Fiji. The Government of Fiji’s role as the financier warranted a Memorandum of Agreement.
(15) The Memorandum of Agreement provided, inter alia, allowed and provided for hiring of any additional expertise by the First Plaintiff and these persons were hired and paid from the same funds dispersed by the Government of Fiji.
(16) The said Memorandum of Agreement also documented the obligations of the First Plaintiff and the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
(17) The First Defendant’s Audit Report for the year 2010, was tabled in Parliament on 17 October 2014.
(18) The First Defendant loaded and circulated the 2010 Audit Report through his official website. Members of the public could access the website and print copies of the said Audit Report.
(19) The said Audit Report was widely circulated and commented on by various media groups, journalists and individual commentators.
(20) In Volume 2 of the 2010 Audit Report, the First Defendant stated at page XIV:
“Ministry of Industry and Trade
Tenders were not called for the restructure of the Rewa Co-operative Dairy Company Limited casting doubt on the transparency of the process in awarding the consultancy contract to Aliz Pacific. In 2010, Government paid $562,500.00 to Aliz Pacific in consultancy fees, with additional fees paid in 2011.”
(21) In Volume 4 of the said Audit Report, the First Defendant further noted as follows:
“Government Procurement procedures pertaining to the acquisition of services above $30,000.00 were breached and the transparency of the process in which Aliz Pacific was awarded the Consultancy Contract for the re-structure of RCDC was questionable. A tender must be called for the procurement of goods, services or works valued at $30,001.00 and more.”
“The Audit also noted that the then RCDC Board was informed by a representative of AP Consultants in a Board Meeting held on 17 May 2010 that Government through the Ministry of Industry and Trade had appointed her Consultancy Firm to implement the re-structure of the company.”
(22) That the use of the word “her” is a direct reference to the Second Plaintiff.
(23) The First Defendant’s statements and words in the 2010 Audit Report were defamatory and libellous.
(24) That the contents of the 2010 Audit Report have been widely circulated and reported in the media and have been used to malign and defame the Plaintiffs.
(25) That no opportunity was given to the Plaintiffs to verify the facts before the 2010 Audit Report was finalised and published.
(26) That the natural and ordinary meanings of the words used in the 2010 Audit Report are defamatory and libellous.
(27) That the defamatory statements contained in the said Audit Report and the various articles that have been written based on the said Report go beyond fair comment and are malicious and designed specifically to impugn the character and reputations of the Plaintiffs.
(28) That the offending words and statements in the said Audit Report and articles have brought the Plaintiffs into hatred, ridicule and contempt and they have suffered damages as a result.
(29) That the Plaintiffs have also lost clients who were interested in using their services, but have decided not to invest as a result of the image painted by the 2010 Audit Report.
(30) That the Plaintiffs are now viewed with suspicion and distrust which is causing them and their employees mental injury, stress and harm.
(31) That the Second Plaintiff also holds various other positions within society and the media outcry arising from the said Audit Report has caused her deep embarrassment, damage to her reputation and stress.
(32) That the Plaintiffs through their Solicitors gave the First Defendant an opportunity to retract and withdraw that part of the Audit Report that deals with the re-structure of the RCDC on the basis that the report contains inaccurate statements; to render an apology in writing to the Plaintiffs; and offer to pay compensation to the Plaintiffs.
(33) The First Defendant has failed to retract the offending parts of the 2010 Audit Report or render an apology to the Plaintiffs.
[3] Accordingly, the Plaintiffs claim the following reliefs against the First Defendant:
1. An Injunction restraining the First Defendant or his agents or servants from further publishing any reports pertaining to the Plaintiffs insofar as the same relates to the Restructure of the Rewa Dairy Co-operative Company Limited;
2. An Order that the First Defendant remove and/or expunge those parts of the 2010 Audit Reports that refer to the Plaintiffs and the Restructure of the Rewa Cooperative Dairy Company Limited;
3. An Injunction that the parts of the 2010 Audit Report that are subject to litigation be removed or blacked out whilst the litigation is pending;
4. A Declaration that the First Defendant has defamed the Plaintiffs;
5. An Order that the First Defendant render a public apology to the Plaintiffs;
6. General and Special Damages;
7. Interest;
8. Costs on an indemnity basis; and
9. Such other relief as the Court may deem just.
[4] The First Defendant in his Statement of Defence totally denies that the statements and words referred in the 2010 Audit Report were defamatory or libellous of the Plaintiffs.
[5] By way of further defence, the First Defendant submitted the following:
(1) That he was under a duty to present his Audit Report including the 2010 Audit Report to Parliament and that the Audit Reports being tabled in Parliament became available to the general public.
(2) In so far as the impugned statements set out in the Statement of Claim, they consist of statements of fact and they are true in substance and in fact and in so far as they consist of expression of opinion they are fair comments made without malice on the said facts which are a matter of public interest.
(a) The following words are statement of facts:
(i) Tenders were not called for the restructure of the Rewa Dairy Cooperative Company Limited.
(ii) The Government did pay Aliz Pacific $562,500.00 in 2010 in consultancy fees.
(iii) A tender must be called for the procurement of goods, services or works valued at $30,001 and more.
(iv) The RCDC Board was informed by a representative of AP Consultants in a Board Meeting on 17 May 2010 that Government through the Ministry of Industry and Trade had appointed the First Plaintiff’s consultancy firm to implement the restructure of the company.
(b) The facts and matters relied on in support of the allegation that the words set out in (a) above and the facts upon which the comments are based, are true as follows:
(i) Tenders were not called by Government for the re-structure of RCDC prior to Government entering into the Memorandum of Agreement dated 9 July 2010.
(ii) The Government did pay Aliz Pacific $562,500.00 in 2010 in consulting fees pursuant to the terms of the said Memorandum of Agreement.
(iii) Finance Instruction 2010 – Section 1 does provide that tenders must be called for the procurement of goods, services or works valued at $30,000.01 and more.
(iv) By letter dated 9 March 2011 from RCDC to the First Defendant, RCDC advised that in the RCDC Board Meeting held on 17 May 2010, the Second Plaintiff advised the Board that the Government of Fiji through the Ministry of Industry and Trade had appointed her consulting firm to be the consultant of the restructure of RCDC.
(3) The publication of the 2010 Audit Report was an occasion of qualified privilege. The First Defendant had a duty to present his Audit Reports to Parliament. That once tabled in Parliament such reports were available to the general public and such reports were a matter of public interest.
(4) As such, the First Defendant was under a legal/or moral duty to present his Audit Reports to Parliament and to make such reports available to the general public.
(5) The First Defendant denies that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any or all the relief sought in the Claim.
[6] The Minutes of the Pre-Trial Conference record the following:
1. Agreed Facts
1.1 The First Plaintiff was at all material times a Chartered Accounting Firm having its office at Level 8, Dominion House, Suva.
1.2 The Second Plaintiff is a Chartered Accountant and the Managing Partner of the First Plaintiff.
1.3 The First Defendant was at all material times the Auditor General of Fiji.
1.4 It was part of the First Defendant’s statutory duties to prepare annual audit reports and to present these reports to Government which reports are required to be tabled in Parliament.
1.5 On 27 April 2010 Cabinet approved the financing of the restructure of Rewa Co-operative Dairy Company Limited (“RCDC”) with $500,000.00 being the allocated amount.
1.6 The Cabinet Decision of 27 April 2010 proposed that the Project Team for the restructure consist of the Chair of RCDC, the financial controller and project manager of RCDC, the CEO of RCDC, the First Plaintiff and an official from the Ministry of Industry and Trade.
1.7 A Memorandum of Agreement dated 9 July 2010 was entered into to implement the restructure of RCDC between the Government of Fiji and the First Plaintiff trading as AP Consultants and providing that the Government of Fiji would pay such amount not exceeding $500,000.00 to the First Plaintiff for the services rendered pursuant to the said Memorandum of Agreement.
1.8 The Memorandum of Agreement provided, inter alia, that the First Plaintiff may hire any additional expertise as they see fit and that any compensation payable for such hiring would be borne by the First Plaintiff.
1.9 The Government of Fiji paid the First Plaintiff $562,500.00 including VAT of $62,500.00 to the First Plaintiff for the services rendered pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement.
1.10 The First Defendant’s reports for 2010 were tabled in Parliament on 17 October 2014.
1.11 The First Defendant placed is 2010 Audit Report on his official website which member of public could access but subsequently, withdrew the Report from his website.
1.12 The 2010 Audit Report was reported in the media.
1.13 In the 2010 Audit Report, the First Defendant stated, inter alia the following:
- (a) “Ministry of Industry and Trade
Tenders were not called for the restructure of the Rewa Dairy Co-operative Company Limited casting doubt on the transparency of the process in awarding the consultancy contract to Aliz Pacific. In 2010, Government paid $562,500.00 to Aliz Pacific in consultancy fees, with additional fees paid in 2011.”
(b) “Engagement of Consultants – Aliz Pacific
The procurement authorities delegated to the Permanent Secretaries and the Government Tender Board when procuring goods, services or works are as follows:
Responsible Authority Procurement Limits
Permanent Secretary $30,000.00 and less
Government Tender Board $30,001.00 and more
A tender must be called for the procurement of goods, services or works valued at $30,001.00 and more.”
(c) “The audit also noted that the RCDC board was informed by a representative of Aliz Pacific in a Board Meeting held on 17 May 2010 that Government through the Ministry of Industry and Trade had appointed her consulting firm to implement the restructure of the company.”
1.14 R Patel Lawyers, the Plaintiff’s Solicitors, wrote a letter to the First Defendant on 19 November 2014 demanding, inter alia, an apology and compensation.
1.15 By letters dated 20 and 27 November 2014, Cromptons, as Solicitors for the First Defendant, replied to the said letter.
1.16 R Patel Lawyers replied to Cromptons said letters of 27 November 2014.
1.17 The Writ in these proceedings was issued on 28 November 2014.
[7] At the commencement of the Hearing, Counsel for the Second Defendant submitted to Court that the Attorney General is only named as a nominal Defendant and no orders or relief have been sought against him. Counsel also submitted that she will not be making any submissions or calling witnesses. Accordingly, she moved that her presence be excused from the duration of the Hearing.
[8] The Hearing in this case commenced with the Second Plaintiff, Dr. Nur Bano Ali giving evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs. In her evidence, she re-stated what was submitted by her in the Statement of Claim and all what was recorded by way of the agreed facts in the Minutes of the Pre-Trial Conference.
[9] The Plaintiffs also called Mr. Sunil Deo Sharma as a witness. Mr Sharma is a Chartered Accountant and Partner in the First Plaintiff’s Firm.
[10] During the course of the Plaintiffs’ case the following exhibits were tendered to Court:
P1 - Copy of letter dated 11 February 2009 from BDO to Rewa Cooperative Dairy Company Limited (“RCDC”)
P2 - Copy of Fiji Sun Expression of Interest advertisement dated 20 February 2009.
P3 - Notice of Meeting of Rewa Co-operative Dairy Company Limited dated 7 May 2009.
P4 - Letter dated 7 September 2009 from Rewa Dairy to the Plaintiff’s
P5 - Copy of Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of Rewa Cooperative Dairy Company Ltd dated 20 November 2009.
P6 - Cabinet Memorandum dated 23 April 2010.
P7 - Copy of Cabinet Decision dated 27 April 2010.
P8 - Copy of Corporate Re-Structure Implementation Plan of Rewa Co-operative Dairy Company Limited dated 5 May 2010.
P9 - Memorandum of Agreement dated 9 July 2010
P10 - Copy of letter from Public Service Commission to Permanent Secretary for Industry and Trade dated 7 September 2010
P11 - Copy of Payment vouchers for Ministry of Industry and Trade and invoices from Aliz Pacific from August to December 2010
P12 - Copy of Volume 2 – Audit Report on Government Ministries and Departments - 2010
P13 - Copy of Volume 4 – Audit Report on Government Ministries and Departments – 2010
P14 - Online FBC article of Ritika Pratap dated 11 November 2014
P15 - Article from fijivillage.com dated 12 November 2014
P16 - Online Fiji Times article dated 15 November 2014 by Nasik Swami
P17 - Paid statement by Aliz Pacific in Fiji Sun on 17 November 2014
P18 - Fiji Sun article by Jyoti Pratibha dated 17 November 2014
P19 - Copy of letter dated 19 November 2014 from R. Patel Lawyers to the Auditor General of Fiji
P20 - Copy of letter dated 20 November 2014 from Cromptons to R. Patel Lawyers.
P21 - Letter dated 21 November 2014 from Office of the Auditor General of Fiji to R. Patel Lawyers
P22 - Copy of letter dated 25 November 2014 from R. Patel Lawyers to Cromptons
P23 - Copy of letter dated 27 November 2014 from Cromptons to R. Patel Lawyers
P24 - Copy of letter dated 27 November from R. Patel Lawyers to Cromptons
[11] The First Defendant relied on the evidence of two witnesses, namely Mr. Hirdahy Lakhan (a former Director of the RCDC Board) and Ms Finau Seru Nagera (Director of Audit at the Auditor General’s Office).
[12] During the course of the evidence the following exhibits were tendered to Court:
D1 - Professor Wadan Narsey’s blog site article dated 6 November 2014
D2 - Copy of letter from Office of the Auditor General of Fiji to Ministry of Industry and Trade attaching draft audit memorandum dated 27 May, 2011
D3 - Letter from RCDC to Office of the Auditor General of Fiji dated 9 March 2011
D4 - Copy of UN General Assembly Resolution A/66/209
D5 - Copy of International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions Guidelines & Goods Practices
D6 - Copy of letter from the Office of the Auditor General of Fiji to RCDC dated 7 March 2011
D7 - Copy of email from First Defendant to Ministry of Industry and Trade dated 16 March 2011
D8 - Copy of letter from Office of the Auditor General of Fiji to RCDC dated 20 April 2011
D9 - Letter from RCDC to Office of the Auditor General of Fiji dated 29 April 2011
D10 - Copy of letter from Office of the Auditor General of Fiji to Ministry of Industry & Trade dated 9 August 2011
D11 - Copy of letter from Ministry of Industry and Trade to Office of the Auditor General of Fiji attaching Ministry’s response dated 17 August 2011
D12 - Copy of letter from Office of the Auditor General of Fiji to Ministry of Industry and Trade attaching report dated 24 October 2011
D13 - Copy of letter from Ministry of Industry & Trade to Office of the Auditor General of Fiji dated 27 October 2011
D14 - Copies of emails from Office of the Auditor General of Fiji to Ministry of Industry & Trade and the Ministry’s response.
[13] At the conclusion of the hearing both Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the First Defendant were granted time to file written submissions. Accordingly, the parties filed detailed written submissions, which I have had the benefit of perusing.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
[14] From the facts of this case the primary issues for determination can be summarized as follows:
(1) Are the statements and words referred to in paragraph 1.13 of the Agreed Facts defamatory of the Plaintiffs?
(2) Were the statements published maliciously?
[15] The onus is on the Plaintiffs, to prove on a balance of probabilities that the statements referred to in the Auditor General’s 2010 Audit Report are in their natural and ordinary meaning defamatory of the Plaintiffs.
[16] The statements and words referred to in paragraph 1.13 of the Agreed Facts are as follows:
(a) “Ministry of Industry and Trade
Tenders were not called for the restructure of the Rewa Dairy Co-operative Company Limited casting doubt on the transparency of the process in awarding the consultancy contract to Aliz Pacific. In 2010, Government paid $562,500.00 to Aliz Pacific in consultancy fees, with additional fees paid in 2011.” [This portion is found at P12, which is the Copy of Volume 2 – Audit Report on Government Ministries and Departments – 2010].
(b) “Engagement of Consultants – Aliz Pacific
The procurement authorities delegated by the Permanent Secretaries and the Government Tender Board when procuring goods, services or works are as follows:
Responsible Authority Procurement Limits
Permanent Secretary $30,000.00 and less
Government Tender Board $30,001.00 and more
A tender must be called for the procurement of goods, services or works valued at $30,001.00 and more.” [This portion is found at P13 which is the Copy of Volume 4 – Audit Report on Government Ministries and Departments – 2010].
(c) “The audit also noted that the RCDC Board was informed by a representative of Aliz Pacific in a Board Meeting held on 17 May 2010 that Government through the Ministry of Industry and Trade had appointed her consulting firm to implement the re-structure of the company.” [This portion is found at P13 which is the Copy of Volume 4 – Audit Report on Government Ministries and Departments – 2010].
[17] I find that paragraph 1.13 of the Agreed Facts does not refer to the following statements, which the Plaintiffs have also referred to in their Statement of Claim (paragraph 27), as statements and words which are defamatory of the Plaintiffs:
“Government Procurement procedures pertaining to the acquisition of services above $30,000.00 were breached and the transparency of the process in which Aliz Pacific was awarded the Consultancy Contract for the re-structure of RCDC was questionable.”
[18] Therefore, in analysing whether the statements and words are defamatory of the Plaintiffs, I have taken into consideration the above portion, in addition to the statements and words found in paragraph 1.13 of the Agreed Facts.
[19] According to the First Defendant, the following words are statement of facts:
(i) Tenders were not called for the restructure of the Rewa Dairy Cooperative Company Limited.
(ii) The Government did pay Aliz Pacific $562,500.00 in 2010 in consultancy fees.
(iii) A tender must be called for the procurement of goods, services or works valued at $30,001 and more.
(iv) The RCDC Board was informed by a representative of AP Consultants in a Board Meeting on 17 May 2010 that Government through
the Ministry of Industry and Trade had appointed the First Plaintiff’s consultancy firm to implement the restructure of the
company.
[20] The words that can be considered as comments are the following:
- “.....casting doubt on the transparency of the process in awarding the consultancy contract to Aliz Pacific”;
- “Government Procurement procedures pertaining to the acquisition of services above $30,000.00 were breached and the transparency of the process in which Aliz Pacific was awarded the Consultancy Contract for the re-structure of RCDC was questionable.”
[21] The First Defendant claims that the said statements were statements of facts and were factually correct and that the comments in the statement were fair comments on a matter of public interest.
[22] The First Defendant has tendered to Court Exhibit marked D3, which is a Letter from RCDC to the Office of the Auditor General of Fiji dated 9 March 2011. The letter is signed by the Chief Financial Officer/Company Secretary of RCDC.
[23] Therein, it is stated as follows:
“We refer to your letter dated 7 March 2011 [tendered to Court as Exhibit D6], in relation to the above subject.
We advise that in the Rewa Co-operative Dairy Company Limited (RCDC) Board Meeting held on 17 May 2010, Dr Nur Bano Ali of Aliz Pacific advised the members that the Government of Fiji through the Ministry of Industry and Trade had appointed her Consultancy Firm to be the consultant of the re-structure of RCDC.
We advise that we did not call or facilitate any tender on the above project.”
[24] From the above, the following two matters are made clear:
(i) That Tenders were not called for the restructure of the Rewa Dairy Cooperative Company Limited.
(ii) That the RCDC Board was informed by a representative of AP Consultants in a Board Meeting on 17 May 2010 that Government through the Ministry of Industry and Trade had appointed the First Plaintiff’s consultancy firm to implement the restructure of the company.
[25] It has been agreed by parties (vide paragraph 1.9 of the Agreed Facts) that “The Government of Fiji paid the First Plaintiff $562,500.00 including VAT of $62,500.00 to the First Plaintiff for the services rendered pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement.” Thus, the statement that the Government did pay Aliz Pacific $562,500.00 in 2010 in consultancy fees, is factually correct.
[26] The next issue to determine is as to whether a tender must be called for the procurement of goods, services or works valued at $30,001 and more. The Audit Report P13 has made reference to Section 11 of Finance Instructions 2010. The fact that a tender must be called for the procurement of goods, services or works valued at $30,001.00 and more is based on the said Finance Instruction 2010.
[27] Considering the above, I agree with the First Defendant’s assertion that the said statements were statements of facts and were true in substance and in fact. The comments in the statement were based on the said statement of facts and can be considered as fair comments on a matter of public interest.
[28] The First Defendant also submits that the said statements and comments were not published maliciously or with any malicious intent.
[29] Having considered all the evidence as a whole, I am of the opinion that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the statements and words referred to in paragraph 1.13 of the Agreed Facts (and the additional portion referred to in paragraph 17 of my Judgment) are defamatory of the Plaintiffs and that the statements were published maliciously by the First Defendant.
[30] Since, Court has made a determination, that the impugned statements and words are not defamatory of the Plaintiffs, I find it inexpedient to delve into issues 2.4; 2.5; 2.6; 2.9 and 2.10 of the issues for determination by Court as recorded in the Minutes of the Pre-Trial Conference.
[31] For the above reasons, I dismiss the First and Second Plaintiff’s claims made against the First Defendant.
FINAL ORDERS
1. This action is dismissed.
2. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order for costs.
Riyaz Hamza
JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF FIJI
Dated this 31st day of January 2018, at Suva.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2018/38.html
