Daniel v Regenvanu

DECISION

1.    This claim was filed on 15/12/2026. The First Defendant filed a response on 22/0/2026 disputing all the claim. Earlier on 13/01/2026 Mr Blake filed a response for the Second Defendant. Mr Blake filed a notice of beginning act on 20/01/2026.

2.    The Court called the first conference on 19/02/2026. Mr Boe, Mr Blake and Mr Jonah were present on that date. The Court noted on that date that there were 2 other proceedings filed by the claimant as CC 25/3782 and CC 26/78.

3.    The Court required Mr Boe for the claimant to have filed sworn statements in support of the claim within 14 days by 18/03/2026. They have not done so to date. The matter was made returnable on 2/04/2026.

4.    On 2/04/2026 Mr Boe did not attend, only Mr Blake and Mr Jonah attended. The Court extended orders by a further 14 days ( by 16/04/2026) and made the matter returnable on 30/04/2026.
5.    On 30/04/2026 I called the case from the Court in Luganville, Santo. I issued the minute only on 21/05/2026 noting that Mr Blake was available via telephone. Mr Boe and Mr Jonah were not available on the date. I adjourned the matter to 25/05/2026.

6.    On 25/05/2026 at 8:25am Mr Blake, Mr Jonah and Ms Robert attended in chamber. Mr Boe did not attend. There has been no correspondence from him or anyone working with him explaining their absence.

7.    Mr Blake handed up a copy of a strike out application filed on 20/04/2026at 11:05am together with the sworn statement of Avio Robert in support.

8.    The First and Second Defendants fled their defences on 6/03/2026. The Third Defendant filed their defence also on 6/03/2026 at 11:00am.

9.    The grounds for the strike out application are that:

a)    There is no reasonable claim disclosed,
b)     Regulations 24 and 34 (1) of the Municipal Council Elections Regulations, Order 61 of 1982 which provides for challenge to the First Defendant’s election as Mayor to be made within 21 days after the election, and
c)    Not having followed the process with the time allowed, the claim is frivolous and vexatious. 

10.    On those stated grounds Mr Blake submitted the claims in the proceeding should be struck out with costs of VT 150,000.

11.    Ms Robert supported the application and sought costs in the sum of VT 20,000.

12.    The application is unchallenged . The claimant has not filed any evidence as directed by previous orders , extended twice. His legal Counsel, Mr Boe failed to attend conferences twice in a row.

13.    I accept Mr Blake’s submission that this claim has no reasonable cause of action against the defendants named. It is an abuse of the Court’s process. It is a frivolous and vexatious claim.

14.     Accordingly I allow the application. The claims of the claimant and this proceeding are hereby struck out in their entirety.

15.    I allow costs in favour of the First and Second Defendants in the sum of VT 150,000. For the third Defendants, their costs is VT 20,000.

16.    Mr Blake filed the application with a sworn statement, two separate defences, two separate responses and a notice of beginning to act. And Mr Blake has attended all previous conferences. For these, the costs of VT 150,000 is reasonable and it is allowed.

17.    The Republic filed a long defence of 6 pages and filed proofs of service. And they have missed attending to only one conference hearing on 30/04/2026. Their costs of VT 20,000 is therefore a reasonable and fair sum.

18.     I order the claimant to pay VT 150,000 to Mr Blake and VT 20,000 to the Attorney General within 21 days from the date of this decision, by 15 June 2026.

DATED at Port Vila  this 25th day of May, 2026.
BY THE COURT

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