 |
| Sosefo Inoke: Singled out by Marshall |
In our third story on the disclosures of the former Appeal Court judge, William Marshall, we take a look at what he says about Justice Sosefo Inoke, whose story was publicised by Coupfourpointfive earlier this year. We revealed that Inoke's contract had not been renewed by the illegal attorney general Aiyaz Khaiyum and the fallout was an insight to the inner workings of the judiciary. (see the following link http://www.coupfourandahalf.com/2012/05/high-court-judge-gets-marching-orders.html). Marshall now claims Khaiyum had planted Inoke to process 'favourable results for the Executive'.
Inoke's rebuttal is at the end of the story.
The strange facts
relating to Justice Sosefo Inoke and his tenure as a High Court Judge
173. Justice Sosefo Inoke who comes
from Rotuma was appointed in early 2009. He was an obscure personal
injuries practitioner in the West. If in any other areas of the law he ran the kind
of argument that he would become wellknown for in his judgments, there is every
reason to understand why he remained obscure. What was said about
his appointment by the Attorney General and Chief Justice was that it
was politic to have another “i-taukei” judge in addition to Justice Temo. The
real reason for his appointment was that
the Attorney General wished to have
someone committed to turning out judgments in favour of the Executive.
It was arranged that the Attorney General would be able to “forum shop” and
send to Justice Inoke particular files in which he wanted a favourable result
for the Executive without regard to the merits of the Executive’s case.
174. Almost the first civil ruling I
delivered in Fiji was in the case of South Sea Cruises Limited v Samsul Mody. It was
an admiralty limitation of liability case. A passenger on a cruise had drunk from a
bottle containing corrosive cleaning fluid thinking it was water. He was
seriously injured. An International Convention applies and, through a complicated but
upwards adjusting formula, limits
damages to a reasonable level. South
Seas had already paid out beyond this limit in paying Mr Mody AU$135,000.
South Seas had an unanswerable case in Fiji for invoking and succeeding under
the International Convention.
175. Justice Inoke dismissed South Sea
Cruises ‘ application with the following
words:-
“[15] Mody’s personal injuries were
not as a result of a collision between the Seaspray and another
vessel. Clearly, the Act and the Conventions have no application to this
case. I must say that I had to check myself to make sure that I was right. Such a
slip by any counsel, let alone by both counsel from either side
must be very rare.
[16] The application
must be dismissed.”
176. Justice Inoke then ordered “indemnity
costs of $10,000” in favour of Mr Mody. Finally in order to prevent an
appeal, Justice Inoke made his judgment an interlocutory one. Since Justice
Inoke knew that this was a final order under the application, this was a dishonest
act to ensure that South Seas must lose the litigation. The authorities are
strongly against leave to appeal being granted if
the order is interlocutory. Justice Inoke
had ruled that South Seas’ claim was an abuse of process.
177. Since this was the most dishonest
and manifestly wrong judgment I had ever seen in 41 years as Counsel or on
the Bench, I brought it to the attention of the Chief Justice. Apart from thanking
me for doing so, Anthony Gates C J made no comment on my statements
objecting to this judge continuing on the
Bench. I then sought an interview with
Christopher Pryde the Solicitor-General. I told him about South Seas and many
other cases decided by Justice Inoke noton the applicable facts and the law of
Fiji, but on his subjective exercise of personal power being anything other
than the law of Fiji. Like Anthony Gates C
J, Christopher Pryde S G politely
heard me out but said nothing.
178. Some time later when the substantive
appeal was heard on 7th March 2011, Mr M Thompson S C from Australia
for Mr Samsul Mody, immediately disowned reliance on everything said
and done by Justice Inoke in the Court below.
179. I found that Justice Inoke had
been seemingly always invited in one or two cases per session of both the
Appeal Court and the Supreme Court. I was expected to continue this practice
when I took over running the Court of Appeal, and I reluctantly did so. I
neutralized this to some extent by choosing cases on personal injuries, where if
the original Plaintiff had the merits, the facts
and the law on his side, Justice Inoke
could and would write a judgment that was honest and legally correct.