The Republic of Vanuatu v Sogari

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

1.    This is a reserved judgment.

2.    The Republic as the claimant filed its application for summary judgment on 22nd May 2025 together with the supporting sworn statement by Edmond Tavala.

3.    The Court issued directions on 22nd May 2025 requiring the claimant to file/serve the application with its supporting statement by 4/06/2026, and for the defendant to file/ serve a response by 18/08/2025 within a returnable date on 19/06/2025. Mr Kalsakau did not appear on 22/05/2025.

4.    On 19th June 2026 the Court sat for the hearing. Mr Kalsakau was again not present and the Court adjourned to 15th July 2025 at 9:00am for the hearing.

5.    On 15th July 2025 Mr Kalsakau did not appear. Ms Robert pressed the Court to enter summary Judgment relying on the evidence of Edmond Tavala filed on 22nd May 2025.

6.    Service of the application was effected on Mr Kalsakau on 24 June 2025. Mr Kalsakau acknowledged service by signing the proof of service filed on 26th June 2025.

7.    The claim is for reimbursement of VT 4,402,325 paid by the Republic to the Defendant by local Purchase Order (LPO) No. 610-114559 on 1st July 2021 pursuant to a contract executed between the Parties, for the Defendant to construct a Vaccine Storage Unit for the Penama Province at Lolowai Hospital.

8.    The VT 4,402,325 paid represented 50% of the total amount of VT 8,804,650, the balance to be paid upon completion of the Unit.

9.    The Defendant received payment and commenced construction. However in mid-October 2021 the Defendant had ceased construction without notice. The work he contracted to perform was not complete.

10.    As a result the claimant filed the claim for the refund of VT 4,402,325 paid and for damages for breach of contract, together with interests of 5% and costs.

11.    The claimant filed an amended claim on 23rd July 2024 amending paragraphs 2 and 3 only of the original claim but maintaining the rest of the pleadings and the reliefs as per the original claim.

12.    The defendant filed a defence to the original claim on 21st June 2024 and a defence to the amended claim on 13th September 2024.

13.    The defendant admits to the pleadings in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and says he acted in good faith.

14.    As to the pleadings in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 he shifts liability to Lora Lini who he alleges was a signatory to his business account had withdrawn moneys from the account without his knowledge, leaving him with insufficient funds to purchase materials to complete the unit he had contracted to construct.

15.    As a result he denies the alleged breach in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the claim and says it was an innocent breach. Further he claimed that the claims by the claimant should be dismissed and that Lora Lini should be made a party to the proceeding. Mr Kalsakau filed a Third Party notice on 2nd October 2024.

16.    The Republic however pressed for a summary judgment claiming the defendant does not have any prospect of success on the defences filed.

17.    I agree with Counsel for the claimant. The defences of the Defendant are not good defences. The application seeking summary judgment is properly made under the Civil Procedures Rules in particular Rule 9.6.

18.    The Court is satisfied there is no real prospect of the defendant defending the claims. He is shifting liability to a party who appears from the record that has not been served by the claimant. That is why she has not complied with the directions issued on 13th February 2025.

19.    Further, the defendant has been directed to file and serve his evidence, but he has failed to do so. He states in his defence that he breached the contract in good faith but failed to produce any evidence to show he took steps to inform the relevant agents of the Republic on the ground that he was having difficulties with his business account i.e by someone withdrawing funds without his knowledge. It was open to him to have lodged a complaint or report to the Police to investigate, but there is no evidence from him that he did so.

20.    There is evidence from Edmond Tavala that the Defendant abandoned works since the end of 2021 through 2022 without notice, so how could he claim he ceased works in good faith? He has not filed any responding evidence to those evidence.

21.    For those reasons, I enter summary judgment in favour of the claimant for recovery of the sum of VT 4,402,325 together with interests at the rate of 5% per annum from 2022 to the date of Judgment, a total of 5 years at VT 220,116 per year for 5 years until the judgment is settled in full. The total amount of accumulated interests is VT 1, 100,581.

22.    There has been no evidence as to damages, therefore no damages are awarded. However to cover for this head, I Order that interest will continue to accumulate each year at 5% on the principal sum until it is fully paid by the defendant.

23.    The total amount of the judgment sum shall be VT 4,402,325 plus VT 1,100,581= VT 5,502,906.

24.    Finally the claimant is entitled to their costs of the proceeding on the standard basis as agreed or be taxed. 

DATED at Port Vila this 26th day of June 2026
BY THE COURT

Hon. Justice Oliver A Saksak