Leave to appeal dismissed
17 May, 2019, 10:40 am
THE Supreme Court of New Zealand has dismissed former Fiji Football Association president Dr Shamsud-Dean Sahu Khan’s case for claiming damages against a man he claimed to have cheated him of more than $170,000.
Dr Sahu Khan claimed that he was approached by a Mohammed Shariff, who told him that Fiji’s Prime Minister and Attorney-General wanted Dr Sahu Khan to give constitutional law advice to the Fijian Government.
Dr Sahu Khan said he was told he would be a member of a proposed Fiji Constitutional Reform Committee.
Dr Sahu Khan said Mr Shariff told him that he would receive remuneration of $3 million per year for his services.
However, Mr Shariff allegedly told Dr Sahu Khan that he would first need to pay him $173,000 to facilitate the appointment.
In court, Dr Sahu Khan gave evidence that he trusted Mr Shariff and paid the money and that no appointment was made and Dr Sahu Khan then sued Mr Shariff in the High Court of New Zealand, claiming damages from Mr Shariff for deceiving him with Mr Shariff not appearing in court to defend the case.
The High Court of New Zealand dismissed Dr Sahu Khan’s claim for damages, saying it could not be proven that Mr Shariff knew his promises were false when he made them, or if it was possible Mr Shariff had been misled in what he told Dr Sahu Khan.
Dr Sahu Khan appealed to the New Zealand Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal. Dr Sahu Khan then applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court said it could not grant leave to appeal except where it was satisfied that it was necessary to do so in the interests of justice.
The court said the case involved consideration of whether the appeal involved a matter of general or public importance or of general commercial significance, or whether a substantial miscarriage of justice may had occurred.
The court said that in terms of the first of these criteria, there was nothing to indicate any matter of general or public importance or of commercial importance.
The court said Dr Sahu Khan’s submissions did not develop any challenge to the relevant principles but rather, the focus was on the factual findings and the application of the principles in relation to the tort of deceit to the specific facts.