Iapson v Tafea Football Association

Court Supreme Court

Case type Civil

Case number 1630 of 2026

Hearing date 29 Jun 2026

Decision date 30 Jun 2026

Official PDF document

Judge(s) Justice Oliver Saksak

Respondent(s) Tafea Football Association - First Respondent; Vanuatu Football Federation (VFF) - Second Respondent

Applicant(s) George Iapson, Joshua Nakat And Nakat Kuckery

Counsel Mr Edward Nalyal for The Applicants/ Claimants (absent); Mr Avock Godden for Second Respondent (VFF); No Appearance for First Respondent

DECISION 


1.    The Orders issued by this Court on 4th June 2026 are hereby vacated.

2.    This proceeding and applications be dismissed in their entirety.

3.    The Second Respondent is entitled to its cost to be paid by the applicants on the standard basis as agreed or taxed.

Background

4.    On 3rd June 2026 the applicants filed an urgent exparte application pursuant to Rules 7.5 and Rule 18.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules together with a supporting sworn statement of Geroge Iapson, and an undertaking as to damages.

5.    Subsequent to the filing of those documents the Court heard the application and issued Orders on 4th June 2026 which were:

a)    An Order that the Respondent ( Tafea Football Association) be restrained from submitting the name of the M3 United Footbal Club ( M3 F.C) to the Vanuatu Football Federation ( VFF) and/or permitting the M3 FC in Port Vila to represent the Respondent in the upcoming NSL competition until further orders.

b)    An Order that the Applicants file a substantive claim within 14 days. 

c)    Costs be in the cause.

d)    Liberty is given to the Respondent to apply on 48 hours notice. 

6.    On 24th June 2026 Mr Nalyal filed the sworn statement of George Iapson in support of the urgent application and of urgency. Another urgent application was filed on 24th June 2026 at 3:35pm with another undertaking as to damages. This application included the second respondent, VFF. Then on 25th June 2026 at 8:00am another undertaking as to damages was filed.

7.    On 26th June 2026 at 11:25 a further sworn statement by George Iapson was filed. Earlier at 11:20am the applicants filed a Supreme Court claim including VFF as the Second Defendant. It is a claim for damages and costs against the “Defendant”. It does not specify which of the defendants they claim damages from.

8.    At 1:25pm on 26/06/2026 Mr Godden filed a notice of beginning to act for the Second Respondent/Defendant. 

9.    The Court fixed the second urgent application for hearing at 1:30pm on 26/06/2026.Both Mr Nalyal and Mr Godden attended. Mr Gordon informed the Court that the claimants’ application had become academic as events had overtaken the orders of 4th June 2026. Mr Godden sought an adjournment to file documents to substantiate his assertions. He further argued that the claimants had filed their claims outside of the 14 days as directed by 4th June orders and that the claim did not disclose any cause of action.

10.    I allowed Mr Godden time to prepare his documents over the weekend and to file/serve them by 8:30am on 29th June 2026.

11.    At 8:35am on 29/06/2026 Mr Godden filed a short defence to the claim asserting the claim does not disclose any cause of action against the Second Defendants, that it is defective and should be dismissed with costs. At the same time Mr Godden filed the sworn statement of Darval Simon that it is defective and should be dismissed with costs. Mr Godden filed the Second respondent’s written submissions in opposition to the Claimants’ urgent application filed on 24 June 2026.

12.    The Court fixed the hearing for 10:30am on 29 June 2026 in chamber.

Discussion

13.    The Court convened at exactly 10:30am. Mr Nalyal did not appear although he was reminded by the Judge earlier that morning when he appeared with Mr Blake for the Malapoa Peninsula case. The Court waited until 10:45am when I heard Mr Godden only briefly in relation to the documents that he had filed at 8:35am.

14.    First, I noted that the Supreme Court Claim filed by the applicants/claimants was filed outside of the 14 days as directed on 4th June 2026.

15.    Secondly, the claim filed on 26 June 2026 named only Tafea Football Association as the Defendant. However, the undertaking as to damages filed on 25/06/2026, the urgent application filed on 24/06/2026 with its supporting sworn statement in support and of urgency and the further sworn statement of George Iapson filed at 11:25am on 26/06/2026 all name the VFF as the Second Respondent.

16.    I find this is inconsistent with the Supreme Court clam filed at 11:20am on 26/06/2026. I find it therefore an abuse of process.

17.    Thirdly from the evidence of Darval Simon which is unchallenged, I am satisfied from the Receipt disclosed as Annexure “DS2” that the Nalkutan FC has withdrawn from the competition.

18.    Fourthly from Annexure “DS3” I am satisfied as to the final standings showing that M3FC are champions at No.1. And the official announcement reads:

“On 25th May 2026, the Tafea Football Association Officially declared M3FC as the TFA Champions League Winner”
This was made some 10 days prior to 4th June 2026 when the Court issued the restraining orders.

19.    Fifthly from Annexure “DS4” I am satisfied George Iapson is not an executive member of Nalkutan FC or of the West Tanna Football League. That puts his status or standing to bring this proceeding and the application into question.

20.    Joshua Nakat and Nakat Kuckery have not deposed to any evidence in support of the applications for the Supreme Court claim. They are referred to in annexure “ DS4” but they have not made their positions clear as to whether they support the applications and the Supreme Court Claim filed and that omission or failure is disadvantageous to the their applications and their claims for damages.

21.    In the circumstances I am satisfied that:

a)    The applications by the claimants are academic.

b)    The claims do not disclose any reasonable cause of actions against both the First and Second Respondents.

c)    It is an abuse of process to have brought in the Second Defendant into the applications without first seeking leave to amend the Supreme Court claim to include them.

d)    The claimants have no standing to have filed the applications and the Supreme Court claim.

e)    The claims are frivolous and vexatious and amount to an abuse of process.

f)    The applications and claim have resulted in the Second Defendant/ Respondent incuring unnecessary costs.

g)    The Second Respondents are entitled to their costs of the proceeding and applications on the standard basis as agreed or taxed. 

DATED at Port Vila this 30th   day of June 2026
BY THE COURT

 


Hon. Justice Oliver A Saksak

⚠️ Beware of fake websites pretending to be official. Always check the domain carefully as official Vanuatu Government sites end with .gov.vu.