IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
WESTERN DIVISION AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Action No. HBC 319 of 1999

BETWEEN:
SAFARI LODGE FIJI LIMITED a duly incorporated Company and having its registered 
Office at Suva, and WARREN FRANCIS of Sydney, Australia.
PLAINTIFFS

A N D:
MICHAEL HARVEY of Brisbane, Australia, Solicitor.
1st DEFENDANT

A N D:
ROSEDALE LIMITED a limited liability Company having its registered Office at Suva, Fiji.
2nd DEFENDANT

A N D:DROMAMA LIMITED a limited liability Company having its registered Office at 
Suva, Fiji.
3rd DEFENDANT

A N D:
SILVERDALE of Suva, Fiji.
4th DEFENDANT

Appearances	:	Ms. Tumalevu M. for the Plaintiffs
Ms. Chand A. for the first Defendant
Date of Hearing	:	Ruling on Submissions
Date of Ruling	:	20 March 2026

R U L I N G

1.	This is perhaps the oldest pending civil action in Fiji.  Its history is nothing short of a cautionary tale. 

2.	Twenty-seven years ago, the claim was filed at the Lautoka High Court.  

3.	In the years that followed, the case would descend into a tangle of interlocutory clashes and procedural detours. These resulted in the following four rulings/judgments:

(1)	Safari Lodge Fiji Ltd v Rosedale Ltd [2008] FJHC 139; Civil Action 319.1999 (5 February 2008)

(2)	Safari Lodge Fiji Ltd v Rosedale Ltd [2008] FJCA 102; ABU0007.2008S; ABU0011.2008S (17 April 2008)

(3)	Safari Lodge Fiji Ltd v Rosedale Ltd [2009] FJHC 256; HBC319.1999 (13 November 2009)

(4)	Safari Lodge Fiji Ltd v Rosedale Ltd [2025] FJHC 40; HBC319.1999 (11 February 2025)

4.	At this juncture, a trial date remains uncertain, as before me now are the following three interlocutory applications:

(i)	the defendants’ application to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim.	
(ii)	the plaintiffs’ application to amend the statement of claim.	
(iii)	the plaintiff’s application to strike out certain portions of an affidavit filed for and on behalf of the defendant.	

5.	Both Counsel argue that these applications are procedurally necessary.  

6.	Still, it is impossible to ignore that they mark yet another detour from a trial that has been awaited for twenty‑seven years. 

7.	Madam Justice Scutt, in her Ruling of 5 February 2008, observed that this matter has had a rather long checkered history (as noted in paragraph [2] of FCA’s Judgment of 17 April 2008).  

8.	I note that all the pre‑trial steps, including discoveries and the pre‑trial conference, were already completed at the time of Scutt J’s Ruling. However, the matter did not proceed to trial for one reason or another. 

9.	It is trite that an application to amend pleadings is rarely refused (as per Bowen LJ in Cropper v. Smith (1884) 26 Ch. D. 700 p 710;  National Bank of Fiji v Naicker [2013] FJCA 106; ABU0034.2011 (8 October 2013).

10.	Courts endeavor to maintain flexibility and fairness and will allow an amendment if it will enable a party to put his best foot forward so to speak, and thus help in clarifying the real issues in the case. 

11.	It is also well‑established that an application to strike out a pleading is rarely allowed, as noted by Kirby J in  Len Lindon -v- The Commonwealth of Australia (No. 2) S. 96/005. Otherwise, a litigant would be too easily denied his day in court.

12.	Having said all that, there is also a need to consider matters from the viewpoint of case management. 

13.	It is generally true that justice may be served by allowing an amendment, or, in the rarest of cases, in the striking out of a pleading. 

14.	However, a case which is still tied up in such basic interlocutory matters twenty‑seven years after commencement, with no trial date in sight, demands an approach which trumps case management, moving forward.

15.	This is the approach I adopt henceforth on this matter and with that in mind, I now make the following directions: 

(i)	this matter is to be fixed for a trial on a date (or dates) between May and August 2026.  The parties are to confirm today their suitable dates.

(ii)	I refuse to allow the defendants’ application to strike out the statement of claim in accordance with the principles stated by Kirby J in Len Lindon -v- The Commonwealth of Australia (No. 2) S. 96/005 (see footnotes).

(iii)	I also refuse the plaintiff’s application to amend the statement of claim, mindful that granting it would restart the interlocutory processes and trigger the inevitable disputes that accompany them.

(iv)	I also refuse to strike out the parts of the affidavit in question which was filed on behalf of the defendants. However, I remain open at trial to hearing objections to its content, admissibility, probative value, or any other ground that may be raised, should the party concerned seek to rely on the affidavit in support of their case.

(v)	the parties are to file fresh Affidavits Verifying Lists of Documents within twenty‑one (21) days, i.e. by 07 April 2026. Failure to comply with this direction will result in the striking out of the defaulting party’s pleading in its entirety, together with appropriate ancillary orders in favour of the other party.

(vi)	the parties are to convene and complete all discoveries and inspections within fourteen (14) days from 07 April 2026. i.e. by 21 April 2026. 

(vii)	the parties are to convene and complete a Pre-Trial Conference within 14 days thereafter. Their Pre-Trial Conference Minutes are to be filed by 05 May 2026.

(viii)	the plaintiff is to file Copy Pleadings fourteen (14) days thereafter i.e. by 19 May 2026.

16.	This matter is adjourned to 08 April 2026 to check on compliance with the filing of Affidavits Verifying Lists of Documents. 

………………………………
Anare Tuilevuka
JUDGE

20 March 2026