	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Vanuatu

You are here: PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2002 >> [2002] VUSC 10

McLeod v Sope [2002] VUSC 10; Civil Case 115 of 1998 (26 February 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Civil Jurisdiction) Civil Case No.115 of 1998

BETWEEN:

ROBERT MCLEOD

Plaintiff

AND:

KALORIB SOPE

First Defendant

<
AND:

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> THORNEY GENERAL

REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT OF VANUATU

Second Defendant

Coram: R. Marum J. MBE

Mr. Robert Sugde the plaintiff

Mr. George Nako for the defendants

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> JUDGMENT

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> This case was for assessment of the claim by the plaintiff, pursuant to an UnOrder of the 14^{th December 2000
making judgment for the plaintiff.}

As the order was made in favour of the plaintifere were no other issues left to dispute the plaintifintiff claims, but rather for assessment for damages only.

In evidenceplaintiff was called, and the defence called Lyness from Video World to give comparisparison evidence, her evidence was of no use to this case.

The plaintiff had his revised Statement of Claim totalling VT2.165.018. No evidence from the defendant to dispute the claims.

Counsel for the defendant advances on Section 74 of the Customs Act, which referred to one per cent compensation to be paid by the Government per month on the value of the property, if the goods were seized without good cause. However, the plaintiff claims was that the 59 videotapes were removed from him by customs officers at the Airport for them to view for any pornographic prints therein. Some of the tapes were returned on the 2^nd September 1998 and 19 were yet to be returned. The videotapes were then returned on 25^th November 1998, some three months after the videotapes were removed from the plaintiff. When these videotapes were returned on the 25^th November 1998, one was missing and that is “Best of Mr. Bean”.

I find that the period was far too long for the to be returned to him. The plaintiff felt great econ economical effect in the use of the videotapes for his business, as at that time it was going towards December. The plaintiff’s business was for hiring of videotapes, showing movies, duplicating, selling to other video shops, and also to the islands. He is a businessman and ordering videotapes are for his business to earn money. It could have been economical for the officers to return the video tapes as soon as possible, after viewing them, and as stated earlier three months was far too long, and as said by the plaintiff that he would have earn a lot of money by that time. The earning would be from borrowing those cassettes, showing movies, selling, duplicating and sending to islands, as after three months other video companies would have rented out similar films and thus reduce the market of those video tapes.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> I find Section 74 of the Customs Act cannot stand to prevent the defendants,hose tapes were removed frod from the plaintiff on good faith and within the duties of the Customs Officers for viewing for any pornographic prints. And on the same token, the plaintiff accept those video tapes to be viewed and returned as soon as possible for him to continue to earn money from those video tapes.

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> I find that the plaintiff has suffered actual econom loss that cannot be really compensated for the loss, oss, as those videotapes now to be treated as old videotapes, as other video companies also have similar videotapes, and the borrowing will be far less and that is a loss to his business.

On the plaintiff claims and his calculations on the amount he lost, no evidence from the defendant to oppose his calculations and remain not contested. Neither, the Court has evidence, to disturb his calculations. For all these reasons I find for the plaintiff the amount of VT2.165.018 claim for.

Dated at Port Vila, this 26^th day of bruary 2002.

R. MARUM MBE

JUDGE.

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2002/10.html