The Civil High Court has dismissed a case brought by businessman John Samisoni against Corporate Management Services PTE Limited, which operates as Hot Bread Kitchen, and several government officials, including the Ministers for Employment and Health as well as the Office of the Attorney-General.
The case was reviewed earlier this month by Justice Dane Tuiqereqere, who expressed that the matter raises significant constitutional questions. In his assessment, Justice Tuiqereqere noted that if the court concludes that the 2021 Regulations are lawful, Mr. Samisoni’s claim would fail. He pointed out that in a previous ruling regarding the Fijian Teachers Association, he had already determined that these regulations were indeed lawful, although they did impose certain restrictions on constitutional rights similar to those cited by Samisoni.
In August 2021, Samisoni lost his job after he refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. His employer terminated his employment under Section 52F of the Health and Safety at Work (General Workplace Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. Samisoni challenged the validity of these regulations, claiming they were beyond the legal authority. The other parties involved sought to dismiss his claims.
The central legal question is whether the 2021 Regulations enacted on July 8, 2021, are lawful. The regulations mandated that employees needed to be vaccinated to work, with the first dose required by August 15, 2021, and the second by November 1, 2021. Samisoni did not return to work after the deadline in compliance with these regulations and informed his employer of his intention not to be vaccinated, citing personal research and concerns regarding the vaccine. Following a discussion, his employer confirmed the termination of his employment effective August 15, 2021.
Justice Tuiqereqere clarified that the respondents correctly argued that a constitutional redress action under Section 44(1) applies only for violations of Chapter 2 provisions of the Constitution. Furthermore, Samisoni failed to file his motion within the required 60 days from when the issue arose. Consequently, the judge ruled that he has a sufficient alternative remedy through an employment grievance process outlined in the Employment Relations Act 2007.
In response, Samisoni contended that the motion to strike out his case was filed improperly by the respondents according to the High Court Rules 1988.