IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Civse No.35 of 1992
BETWEEN:
ABRAHAM GAUA
Plaintiff
<
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
SAMSON LIVO
Defendant
Date of Conference: 14th September, 2001 at 8:30 a.m.
Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak
Cler>Clerk: Ms Cynthia Thomas
Counsel: Mr Saling Stephens for the Plaintiff
Mr Samson Livo, Defendant, unrepresented appearing in
person.
RULING
-GB">
This matter appears for conference after it appears that
the Orders of this Court 9th March, 2001 have not been
complied wied with by the defendant. By those orders the defendant was granted a
5 months grace
period to finalise certain arrangements to assist him in
payment of VT7.978.018 (interests inclusive) due to the Plaintiff
since 15th
February 1993. Interests have been accumulating daily at 15% per annum from
the date of judgment. The original or principal
sum owed was VT3.627.036. On
9th March, 2001 this Court ordered the defendant to pay the whole
sum outstanding on or before 9th August, 2001.
On 7th August, 2001 the defendant advised
Counsel for the Plff by letter that he accepted liability for only
VT3. VT3.500.000
and offered to pay the sum over a period of 12 months. However
he wrote again on 9th August, 2001 to offer that he would pay
VT3,500.000 over a period of 35 months of VT100.000 per month. He enclosed a
copy of a cheque dated 10th August, 2001 of VT100,000 made in
favour of the Plaintiff’s company. Today the defendant stands by that offer.
He has
another cheque of VT100.000 being the second payment for the month of
September.
Mr Stephens informs the Court that his client does not
accept the defendant’s offer unless he increases the amount to include
interests. The defendant insists that he can only offer to pay the principal
sum and that if the Plaintiff presses for
interests then he has the liberty
to remove the buildings and all materials from his land.
It appears to the Court that the Parties have to a
stalemate. In such a situation it is necessary for the Court to assist by
providing its views on the matter. My view is that the Plaintiff would be
wise to accept the defendant’s offer on
a “without prejudice” basis. In view
of the defendant’s willingness to honour his offer by presenting a second
cheque
representing the second payment, the Plaintiff would do well to
accept, or risk losing everything if he did not wish to shift
from his
original position.
Mr Stephens indicates that his client would accee
view of the Court and agrees that his client would accept the defendant’s
off offer on a without prejudice basis only. Whether or not the Plaintiff
pursues the interests at the end of 35 months
when VT3.500.000 have been
paid in full would be in the sole discretion of the Plaintiff.
On that basis therefore this Court simply endorses the
agreement of both parties and encourage them to enter into further dialogue
in the event that there arises any further difficulties in the defendant
performing according to the terms of his offer.
There is therefore no requiremeor any direction
orders except to require the defendant to furnish the Registry of thof the Court
with copes of all cheques representing future payments.
DATED at Luganville this 14th day of
September, 2001.
BY THE COURT
<
OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2001/101.html
