BY MELVILLE TITIULU
The Chief Justice Sir Albert Palmer, will deliver his ruling this morning on the ‘security for cost’ and ‘joinder’ application at the High Court courtroom 1.
This is in relation to the Judicial Review Claim filed against Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele by the coalition group heard in court earlier this week.
After ruling on the applications for security cost and Joinder the court will then give further directions on when it will hear the substantive Judicial Review claim as initially filed by the opposition coalition.
On Thursday, April 2, when the matter came for a directions hearing, the Attorney General John Muria sought court orders for security of costs of $30,000.00 to be paid by each claimant within 72 hours from the date of the orders.
Mr. Muria submits, in default of compliance, that he seeks the court’s discretion to order the JR claim to be striked out, as he viewed it as ‘’weak, speculative and lacking proper basis’’.
Counsel Gabriel Suri, in response to AG submissions, was of the view that Mr Muria was trying to ‘’sneak those arguments under the security of cost’’ with a view to applying for a strike out for the JR claim.
Mr Suri further told the court that the prevailing facts leading up to the filing of the JR claim are “legal points not political points’’ and hence, are “justifiable and not speculative’’ as parliament cannot move and GG denied power.
He further said in court that these create a platform for a constitutional crisis as the Government is run by a minority, which affects the Parliament itself.
Constitutional legal issues to consider are the implied and reserved powers of the GG still not yet determined.
He told the court, “both GG and the Prime Minister were confused about who had the power to convene parliament”.
Mr Suri raises questions on why the Prime Minister delayed convening a meeting.
“If the PM can encourage the GG, I can advise the claimant to withdraw the matter’’, he told the court.
Mr Suri raised eyebrows as to how the AG came up with the figure of $30,000, which he said should be deemed as an ‘’unjust enrichment’’. Thus, he was of the view that $16,000 to $20,000 is appropriate in view of the standard of cost as provided under Schedule of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
Therefore, he submits that “the application for cost lacks a fundamental threshold both in application and evidence’’. Thus, it should be dismissed with costs.
Counsel John Taupongi concur on Suri’s submissions. Mr Taupongi was of the view that issues for consideration in applications for security for cost are clearly regulated under Rule 24 of the CPR.
Thus, it makes no sense for the respondents to rely on rules and not elaborate on them in court.
As to the second application for joinder. Counsel Barnabas Upwe was interrupted by the Chief Justice halfway through his oral submissions, asking counsel to show issues and relevance on why the Kandere party wants to be a party to the JR claim.
Mr Suri and Mr Taupongi were of the view that the critical question to ask is whether or not including the Kandere party is necessary to address the issues raised in the JR claim.
It follows, that Counsels James Ronnie Kaboke and Francis Waleanisia weighed in and submitted that the joinder application is an abuse of process and should be dismissed with costs on an indemnity basis.
The claimants were represented by Counsels, John Taupongi, Gabriel Suri, James Ronnie Kaboke, and Francis Waleanisia and the AG John Muria with his legal team represented the named respondents in this matter.
For feedback, contact: [email protected]
Editor: [email protected]
