|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
[Report an error]
[F.A.Q.]
Supreme Court of Vanuatu |
[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Help]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
CIVIL CASE NO. 111/88
BETWEEN:
WILLIE MORRIS
(Plaintiff)
AND:
PORT VILA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
(Defendant)
JUDGMENT
In this case, Mr Julian Ala who appeared for the Defendant, took objection in limine that the Agreement between the parties was the agreement described in the hearing of this matter, marked Exhibit 1, whereas Mr Kalkot Matas Kelekele, Counsel for the Plaintiff, contended the Agreement between the parties was the shorter agreement described as Exhibit 4.
Mr Ala called as witnesses Edward Bani, Town Clerk and Mr Alex Hopman who was the Mayor of the Municipality during the period the agreement was signed which was the 1st of November 1986. Both these witnesses gave evidence that Exhibit 1 was the agreement between the parties and indeed the Town Clerk stated that the said agreement was attached to the memorandum of agreement and that he had kept a copy of it in the Town Hall from the date of signing.
Lionel Kalwat, an Industrial Relation Officer in the Labour Department, stated he was involved in the negotiations between the parties. He was shown the memorandum of agreement and identified his signature to the same. He said Exhibit 1 was the memorandum of agreement. He could not be sure which agreement was attached as he only glanced at it and did not read all the sections. He said he did advise that disciplinary matters should be dealt with under the Employment Act and that trade disputes should be dealt with under the Trade Disputes Act but could not be sure whether such matter remained in the agreement but he was certain there was an agreement attached to the memorandum of agreement.
Ephraim Kalsakau is the secretary of the National Union of Labour since August 1988. He is the President of the Municipal Workers Union since 1984. He contended that it was Exhibit 4, the shorter agreement, which was signed and that it was not attached to the memorandum of agreement at the date of signing.
I studied both the agreements and am of the opinion that Exhibit 1 is a complete agreement covering all the essentials necessary for matters between the parties, whereas Exhibit 4, the shorter agreement, lacks many essentials for any agreement.
It is my opinion, considering the strong evidence in favour of the agreement, Exhibit 1, and the fact that it was a comprehensive agreement, that Exhibit 1 was in fact the agreement attached to the memorandum of agreement dated the 1st November 1986 and I so hold. As provisions exist in Exhibit 1 which the Defendants accept as the true agreement, for arbitration to deal with disputes, that procedure should be followed.
I allow costs to the Defendants.
Dated at Vila this 4th day of December, 1988.
Frederick G. Cooke
CHIEF JUSTICE
© 1998 University of the South PacificPacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback| Report an error
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/1988/14.html