The High Court in Lautoka has decided to dismiss a civil case brought against the Fiji Police Force by a retiree from Sigatoka, finding that the claims presented did not meet essential legal requirements. Peter Geoffrey Rae, a resident of Korotogo backroad, initiated the legal action on February 28, 2024, seeking restitution and $3 million in damages.
Rae’s lawsuit accused the police of inadequately investigating a complaint that led to his arrest. He claimed that his constitutional rights were violated, particularly in relation to his prompt presentation in court, which he stated was not fulfilled within the required 48 hours. Furthermore, he alleged infringements on his presumed innocence and humane treatment while in custody.
His claims went beyond the police’s investigative shortcomings—Rae contended he suffered health and mental trauma, experienced the dissolution of his marriage, lost access to his children, and saw his business collapse, all of which he attributed to the actions of the police. Included in his claims was a demand for the restitution of items he valued at $14,030, which involved 30 kilograms of dried yaqona, surfboards, a Nikon camera, and various household items.
In response to Rae’s writ, Ms. J Raman, representing the Fiji Police Force, filed a motion to reject the suit, arguing that it lacked a clear overview of the claims, did not provide a legal basis, and failed to detail the facts supporting the allegations.
Despite Rae’s argument that the dismissal of his case would be contrary to the interests of justice and his request for an opportunity to amend his claim, the court pointed out that no formal statement of claim was ever submitted. On February 6, Master Preetika Prasad ruled that Rae’s case did not demonstrate a reasonable cause of action. The court highlighted that Rae’s submissions were deficient in factual context and details that could substantiate his allegations of rights violations and consequential damages. Moreover, Rae’s pursuit of a default judgment, rather than seeking an extension to file the necessary documents, was seen as an abuse of the legal process.
As a result, the court struck out the writ of summons and ruled that no costs would be awarded. This case emphasizes the critical need for adherence to legal protocols in civil proceedings, reminding claimants of the importance of well-founded claims backed by substantial evidence.