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

  Download original PDF

Tahi v Leo [2026] VUSC 8; Civil Case 839 of 2024 (17 February 2026)

DECISION

1. The claims of the claimants are hereby struck out.
   
2. Mr Roger Tevi has acted for the claimants twice. And he has ceased acting for them also twice.
   
3. The claimants have failed to comply with previous directions that required them to file and serve their additional sworn statements on 24^th September 2025. The claimants were ordered to pay trial fees of VT 715, 000 on 3^rd December 2025 for a trial hearing today, 17^th February 2026.
   
4. The Claimants have not taken any steps since September 2025 to pursue to ensure their case continues. And they have failed to comply with previous orders of the Court.
   
5. Under these circumstances the Court has inherent jurisdiction under Rule 9.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules to strike out the claim and proceeding.
   
6. Mr Leo referred to the defendant’s application to strike out the claim which the Court ruled was premature on 20^th March 2025 but which was nevertheless dismissed. And Mr Leo sought leave to reinstate the application.
   
7. The application was allowed, leave was granted and the application reinstated. The application was filed on 9^th October 2024 made pursuant to Rule 18.11 of the Civil Procedures Rules.
   
8. The Court directed the claimants on 16^th August 2024 to file and serve their evidence by 30^th August 2024. They filed a sworn statement by Nester Tahi on 26^th November 2024 some 3 months later.
   
9. The claimants had a further 5 months from 24^th September 2025 to file their additional sworn statements. They have failed to do so. And they have had a total of about 8 months in which they have done nothing to progress their claim.
   
10. Today was allocated for a trial hearing. Mr Tevi filed a second notice of ceasing to act but no formal leave has been granted by the Court as he was not in Court when the case was called. And the Claimants have not paid their trial fees. Mr Tevi should continue to assist the Court. The Court of Appeal in Boar v Felix [2012] VUCA 7 endorsed this practice to be continued to be followed when lawyers have ceased acting.
    
11. Under those circumstances the oral application by Mr Leo is properly made.
    
12. I therefore strike out the claimant’s claim and proceeding in its entirety.
    
13. Mr Leo did not seek any order for costs and therefore there is no order as to costs.
    
14. This proceeding is to be removed from the register and the file is to be closed.
    

DATED at Port Vila this 17^th day of February, 2026.

BY THE COURT

...........................
Hon. Justice Oliver A Saksak