THE Supreme Court has dismissed the University of Fiji’s appeal in an employment dispute brought by former human resources manager Vijay Kumar, and ordered the university to pay $21,000 in costs.
The three-member panel comprised Justices Terence Arnold, Lowell Goddard and Geoffrey Nettle.
Mr Kumar was employed by the university in July of 2017 and dismissed on April 27, 2019. He subsequently challenged his dismissal in the Employment Relations Court, alleging breach of his employment contract and unfair dismissal.
The Employment Relations Court had struck out Mr Kumar’s claim under section 173(4)(d) of the 2013 Constitution on the ground that the courts could not review any decision taken under a law made between December 5, 2006, and the first sitting of Parliament under the same constitution on October 6, 2014. The employment court held that the dismissal was a decision taken under the University of Fiji Act which was made during the designated period.
However, the Supreme Court allowed Mr Kumar’s appeal, ruling that the dismissal had occurred under his employment contract and not the University of Fiji Act.
In court, the university argued that section 173(4)(d) of the Constitution prevented the courts from hearing Mr Kumar’s claim because the section applied to laws made during the designated period as well as any decision made under those laws even after the designated period.
But the court rejected that interpretation, saying the constitutional provision did not protect decisions or actions made under constitutionally protected laws after the designated period expired.
The court said the designated period ended when the first sitting of Parliament under the 2013 Constitution took place on October 6, 2014.
The court found that extending the protection indefinitely would deprive a large number of people of constitutional rights to have civil disputes determined by a court and to have administrative decisions reviewed.
It ruled that Mr Kumar was not prevented by Section 173(4)(d) from pursuing his employment claim against the university.
The court ordered the university to pay Mr Kumar $21,000 in costs.
