Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Vanuatu Law Reports

Kalo v Public Service Commission (No. 2) [1988] VULawRp 1; [1980-1994] Van LR 398 (7 March 1988)

[1980-1994] Van LR 398

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

Appeal Case No. 3 of 87

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH KALO
Appellant

AND:

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Respondent

[No. 2]

Coram: Ward J
Cazendres J

Counsel: Mr Hudson for Appellant
Mr Durkin for Respondent

JUDGMENT

[PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - notice of appeal - particulars required
- ability to amend]

This purports to be an appeal against a Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on 9th October 1987 on an appeal from a finding of the Public Service Commission.

Mr Durkin for the Respondents takes a preliminary objection on the grounds that the notice of appeal discloses no ground of appeal.

He points out to the Court that there is nothing to indicate which part of the Judgment of the learned Chief Justice is challenged.

Mr Hudson simply replies that he has shown sufficient particularity.

The notice of appeal before this Court is identical in its wording to that before the Supreme Court.

There is no reference at all to the fact that a Supreme Court hearing occurred save in the initial paragraphs.

Part of the learned Chief Justice's ruling was in the Appellant's favour. It is impossible to tell if that is included in the appeal.

Mr Durkin refers to the cases of Pfeiffer v Midland Railway Company [1886] UKLawRpKQB 170; (1887) 18 QBD 243 and Murfett v Smith [1887] UKLawRpPro 12; (1887) 12 PD 116. We accept those as good authority for the proposition that the notice must state the grounds of the application with sufficient particularly to enable the Respondent to appreciate the case he must answer.

We find that this notice is totally defective.

We must therefore consider whether this can or should be corrected by amendment.

We do not feel there is any ground for allowing that. To reveal any ground of appeal in this case should not be a matter of amendment so much as a fresh drafting of the grounds of appeal. We are unwilling to allow such a course.

The appeal is dismissed. We would add the rider that this is a matter of some importance for the continuing administration of the Public Service and urge that the order by the Supreme Court for a fresh appeal hearing by a reconstituted commission be implemented as soon as reasonably possible.

Costs of the Respondent in the appeal to be paid by the Appellant.

Dated at Vila this 7th day of March, 1988.

GORDON WARD
LOUIS CAZENDRES

[Editorial Note: This matter is referred to in Timakata v Attorney General; S/C 103-5/92.]