An application by Hon. ‘Etuate Lavulavu to add a counterclaim against Viliami Uasike Latu was dismissed by Lord Chief Justice O. G. Paulsen in the Nuku‘alofa Supreme Court on 16 October.

Viliami Latu, together with ‘Aisea Silivenusi, filed an election petition against Lavulavu for alleged corruption during the 2014 General Election, and Chief Justice Paulsen had on 9 October set a trial date to hear their petition on 25 November 2015 in Vava‘u.

But after the case had been set down by the Court and on 14 October, an application was made by Lavulavu to add a counterclaim against Viliami Latu.

In his affidavit for the counterclaim Lavulavu deposed that after the 2014 General Election he had lodged a complaint against Latu who was another candidate for Electoral District Vava’u 16, to which Lavulavu was successfully elected as a People’s Representative.

Lavulavu believed the complaint would never be determined by the Office of Elections.

However, Chief Justice Paulsen stated that Lavulavu was unaware that Latu had answered his complaint to the Supervisor of Elections, and there was no evidence that Lavulavu had made any enquiries to find out.

Undue delay

Chief Justice Paulsen concluded that to allow Lavulavu to pursue a counterclaim at this late stage “would mean that the trial dates would have to again be vacated and the trial delayed for some months. …There should be no further delays.”

He further stated that, “I have …formed the clear view that the proposed counterclaim is both irrelevant and useless. Furthermore, Mr Lavulavu is guilty of undue delay.”

The election petition was filed on 8 December 2014 and Lavulavu filed his defence on 21 January 2015.

“Since then there has been no suggestion that Lavulavu has any intention of amending his pleadings despite the fact that the petition has been set down for hearing on more than one occasion.”

The Chief Justice noted that the Court had allocated its time and resources to the trial of the petition based on the representations of Lavulavu and his counsel, Mr ‘O. Pouono who indicated that they would be calling nearly 60 witnesses and the trial could take three weeks.

“To grant Mr Lavulavu’s application [for a counterclaim] would not only be contrary to the public interest but be a substantial waste of the Court’s resources,” Chief Justice Paulsen stated.

He dismissed Lavulavu’s application to add a counterclaim. The respondents  represented by W. C. Edwards are entitled to costs to be fixed by the Registrar