IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)
CCase No.25 of 1998
BETWEEN:
LEONG MANSAN
Plaintiff
AND:
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
BRUN
Defendant
Date of Hearing: 2/10/01 at 0850 a.m.
Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Sakspan>
Ms Mandeng John – Clerk
Counsel: Mr Bill B. Tamwata for the Plaintiff
Mr Hillary Toa for the Defendant
RULING
The Plaintiff applied ex parte on 14th
The Court had decided in favour of the Plaintiff who was the Fourth Defendant in Civil Case No.20 of 1998. A writ of attachment was
issued oued on 18th September 2001. On 14th September 2001
I was satisfied on the affidavit evidence of the Plaintiff that there had
been deliberate defiance of
this Court’s Orders by the Defendant. A formal
ruling of the Court was delivered on 17th September. Although Mr
Toa was present at the hearing on 14th
September, he was not available on 17th September. The Defendant
was in Court in person and it appeared to me proper to adjourn the hearing
of the contempt issue
to allow time to the Defendant to speak to his legal
counsel. A writ of attachment was therefore issued returnable today 2nd
October, 2001. The Defendant and his counsel are both present.
Mr Tamwata informs the Court that there had been further
breaches of the Orders of the Court of 17th September, 2001 by
the Defendant and that eye witnesses were in Court to testify if the Court
allows. That course was
not taken.
Mr Toa tells the Court that he had no knowledge of
incident. On receiving further instructions Mr Toa submits that the
Defendant’sant’s actions were not deliberate actions to defy Court Orders and
informs the Court that the Defendant had expressed
remorse for his past
actions.
The Court is not satisfied with the Defendant’s
ssion. The Defendant has to answer personally why he failed to comply
with the Orders ders of the Court and why he continued to do so. He admits going
back on the property and maintains that he
did not intend to breach Court
Orders. He expresses his apologies for his actions.
Despite the Defendant’s apology the Court views the
Defendant’s repeated entries and actions of removing and replacing locks
to
the entrance of the property as a deliberate defiance of lawful orders. And
it is a serious matter if the Court does
not punish the contemnor. The court
fears that the case might create a precedent for others to follow. This is a
civil
contempt and the Court has powers to deal summarily with the Defendant
under the provisions of section 23 of the Court’s Act
[CAP. 122].
In the circumstances of the case I cor that a fine
is appropriate. I therefore Order the Defendant to pay a fine of VT10.0T10.000
which shall be paid within 14 days from the date of this Ruling. In default
of payment within the specified period the
Defendant will be imprisoned for
a term of three (3) weeks.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
DATED at Luganville this 2nd day of October,
2001.
BY THE COURT
OLIV SAKSAK
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2001/107.html
