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

Taleo v Diniro Obed [2004] VUSC 11; Civil Case 003 of 2004 (13 January 2004)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 03 of 2004.

BETWEEN:

CAPTAIN JOHN MAHLON TALEO
Applicant

AND:

ROBERT DINIRO OBED
Respondent

Mr. Felix Laumae for the Applicant
Mr. Edwards for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The Claimant has applied for mandatory orders to require Robert Obed Deniro, Commissioner of the Vanuatu Police Force (Respondent), to re-instate him into the Vanuatu Police Force. The Claimant is a senior officer within the Police Force. He holds the rank of Chief Inspector and was Superintendent of prisons on his interdiction.

On 7^th April 2003 the Claimant assaulted an escaped prisoner who had surrendered and was in Police custody.

On 16^th April 2003 the Minister responsible for Police interdicted the Claimant from active duties.

On 8^th October 2003 the Police Service Commission (Commission) sat and considered the Claimant’s suspension. It made various orders. The relevant order for the purposes of this application is order (3).

It reads:-

“(3) The officer to be reinstated with immediate effect.”(Order 3)

It is now 3 months 5 days since that decision was made. The claimant claims that the respondent would not act to let him resume his duties, that is, to write to him to reinstate him into the Force in accordance with the decision of the Commission.

The Commission is charged with the responsibility of carrying out enquiries into allegations of disciplinary offences committed by senior members of the Force and making appropriate decisions on the completion of such enquiries. Its orders following an enquiry are final unless an aggrieved party appeals the decision. In this matter the Commission has issued an order to the effect that the Claimant be reinstated with “immediate effect”. No appeal has been lodged. Why the Claimant has not resumed his duties pursuant to the Order 3 of the Commission is, to say the least, puzzling. Counsel on his behalf submitted that-

☞ The Respondent has avoided or refused to see or talk to the Claimant for the purpose of reinstating the Claimant into the Police Force,

☞ To give effect to the Order 3 of the Commission the Respondent must write to the Claimant reinstating him into the Police Force. This is necessary as it has become a practice in the Police Force in such circumstances but the Respondent has refused or failed to write that letter.

Firstly, the submission that the Respondent must write in the manner suggested is miss-conceived. It has no basis in law. Counsel has not been able to show me any authority for this contention in the Police Act [CAP. 105]. Secondly, as a practice it is in contradiction to the powers of the Commission as the authority with statutory powers to discipline senior members of the Force. The intention of order 3 of the Commission is clear. The Claimant is to be reinstated immediately. That in my view is a very clear directive to be obeyed, not sometime in the future but, immediately. The Commissioner and the Claimant are told in no uncertain terms that the Claimant is to return to work immediately. Order 3 of the Commission is not required to be restated by the Commissioner in a letter to the Claimant to enable him to return to work.

The application is dismissed. Costs for this application to be paid by the Claimant at the rate of VT20,000 by 26^th January, 2004.

Dated at Port Vila, this 13^th day of January 2004.

H. BULU
Judge.