Lautoka High Court judge has set aside a $170,000 settlement reached in a car accident case involving a Japanese child who was left permanently disabled, ruling that the agreement was invalid because it bypassed mandatory protections for minors and persons under disability.
Acting judge Mohamed Azhar delivered the ruling in Lautoka on November 21, fnding that the 2019 settlement—reached between lawyers for the parties—was never approved by the court as required under Order 80 of the High Court Rules.
He said this failure deprived the court of its parens patriae responsibility to safeguard the child’s best interests.
“The approval of the court is the condition precedent for the validity of settlement or compromise… The approval of the court is sine qua non,” Justice Azhar said.
The case stems from a tragic accident on 30 July 2017, when four-year-old Ao Naiki and her mother, Sorami Naiki, were struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Sandeep Vikash Chandra on Queens Road, Namaka.
Both suffered severe injuries; the mother later died. Ao, now crippled below the waist, lives in Japan under the care of her grandmother, Shigemi Naiki, who is the child’s next of kin.
The matter was set for trial in 2019, but lawyers informed the court they were negotiating a settlement. Days later, they filed a Notice of Discontinuance, effectively ending the case. The settlement sum of $170,000 was never reviewed by the court and, according to affidavits, was never received by the child or for her benefit.
Justice Azhar said the solicitors had “ignored the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court,” stressing that settlements involving minors must undergo strict scrutiny.
“The very purpose of the rules was completely defeated,” he said.
“Mandatory rules have been overlooked… The court was ousted from exercising its role as the legal guardian of the child.”
The judge also ruled that the discharge document was invalid because it was signed by Losalini Yabaki Ravulovulo, who held a power of attorney from the grandmother but was never appointed by the court as guardian ad litem.
“She lacked authority to act in any manner whatsoever on behalf of the child… Accordingly, the discharge signed is of no validity at all,” the judge said.
Justice Azhar reinstated the lawsuit and set aside the Notice of Discontinuance, relying on the court’s inherent jurisdiction to correct the improper process.
The plaintiff had also sought to replace the grandmother with Mr. Hiroshi Taniguchi as guardian, but the judge refused, finding him a “mere volunteer” with no family connection.
“There is nothing to show that Ms. Shigemi Naiki has been acting improperly… She has been acting properly in the interest of the child,” he said.
While the child’s lawyers sought permission to amend the statement of claim, the judge declined because no draft amendment was provided. He directed them to file a proper application if they wish to revise their pleadings.
Justice Azhar ordered the case reinstated and listed it for mention on 17 February 2026.
