The High Court in Suva has refused an application by the Suva City Council to stay execution of a judgment awarding more than $132,000 in damages to a market vendor injured at the Suva Municipal Market.
In a ruling delivered on May 8, Justice Chaitanya Lakshman dismissed the council’s application for a stay pending appeal, finding that the respondent would suffer substantial hardship if compensation was delayed further.
The case arose from an incident on November 11, 2021, when market vendor Krishan Kumar allegedly fell after his foot became caught on a rope tied to a tarpaulin extending onto a walkway at the Suva Municipal Market.
Following a trial, the court found the council negligent and awarded damages totalling $132,591.15 together with costs. The council later filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay of execution under Order 45 Rule 10 of the High Court Rules 1988.
Justice Lakshman said the council had failed to provide sufficient evidence to show the appeal would be rendered nugatory if payment was made.
“Mere apprehension of difficulty in recovery is insufficient to justify a stay,” the ruling stated.
The court also noted evidence that Mr Kumar, aged 63, continued to face serious medical and financial difficulties, including undergoing dialysis treatment three times a week.
Justice Lakshman said the respondent required funds for medication, household expenses, utility bills and ongoing treatment, adding that the accident occurred nearly five years ago and the plaintiff had already waited several years for judgment.
“The appellate process must not be used to indefinitely deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of Judgment in the absence of compelling or exceptional circumstances,” the ruling stated.
The court further found that the appeal largely challenged findings of fact and evaluation of evidence, with no obvious error of law demonstrated at this stage.
The application for stay was refused and the council was ordered to pay the respondent $2000 in costs within 21 days.
