The Lautoka High Court has ruled that Kelepi Salauca has a reasonable basis to pursue a civil claim against the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Fiji Police Force for alleged malice, wrongful confinement, and violations of his constitutional rights. Master of the High Court Preetika Prasad delivered the decision on a path that leaves room for trial and further fact‑finding.
Salauca had filed a civil suit seeking 25,000 in damages in connection with his arrest in Sigatoka in July 2016, in a burglary case, and alleged that police officers assaulted him over four days. He was granted bail in October 2016, and the civil matter remained unresolved for several years until the court’s July 24 ruling. The criminal proceedings were not pursued to final disposition when the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a nolle prosequi against Salauca in 2020.
In delivering the ruling, Master Prasad stressed that a court should not dismiss a case solely because the plaintiff’s arguments or evidence may not be particularly strong or guaranteed to succeed at trial. Rather, she indicated that a reasonable basis for the claim justifies moving forward so that all relevant evidence and arguments can be fully examined in due course. She noted that Salauca’s pleadings, while lacking some details, did disclose a potential cause of action for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and breach of constitutional rights against the DPP.
The judge emphasized that the key questions—whether Salauca’s detention at Sigatoka Police Station for more than 48 hours was unlawful and whether there was malice in the prosecution—cannot be resolved on submissions and affidavits alone. They are questions of fact that require a full trial, with evidence and testimony, to determine. Accordingly, Master Prasad concluded there is a reasonable basis for the action and allowed for amendments to the pleadings to address any gaps.
The case is now slated to proceed, with the court ordering the matter be heard on August 20. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to enabling thorough examination of evidence in civil disputes involving law enforcement, even where criminal proceedings have not reached a conclusion.
What this means going forward:
– Salauca’s civil claim remains alive, offering a pathway to resolve questions about wrongful detention and alleged malice separate from the criminal case.
– The ruling allows Salauca to amend his pleadings to provide clearer particulars, strengthening his case for trial.
– The decision highlights the principle that civil actions can serve as a check on police conduct and prosecutorial decisions, ensuring that individuals have avenues to seek redress when constitutional rights may have been compromised.
Overall, the ruling preserves the civil route for accountability and sets the stage for a fuller airing of the facts in a future trial, reinforcing the rule of law and due process in Fiji’s legal system.
Leave a comment