Pacific Scoop
Network

Sahu Kahn v Shariff – Leave to appeal dismissed

Press Release – NZ Supreme Court

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B No order as to costs.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 4/2019
[2019] NZSC 47

BETWEEN

MUHAMMAD SHAMSUD-DEAN SAHU KHAN
Applicant

AND

MOHAMMED SHARIFF
Respondent

[…]

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B No order as to costs.

_____________

REASONS

Introduction

[1] Dr Sahu Khan brought proceedings in deceit in the High Court. The claim was dismissed by Fitzgerald J. An appeal against that decision to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful. Dr Sahu Khan now seeks leave to appeal from that decision to this Court.

Background

[2] Dr Sahu Khan was a lawyer practising in Fiji where he had a high profile. He emigrated to New Zealand in 2011. Some time after that, in late 2012/early 2013, Dr Sahu Khan said that he was contacted by Mr Shariff. He claimed that Mr Shariff told him that, in view of Dr Sahu Khan’s qualifications, the Prime Minister and Attorney-General of Fiji wanted Mr Shariff to act as an intermediary to arrange to appoint Dr Sahu Khan as the Chief Legal Advisor to Fiji on constitutional matters or to be a member of the Fiji Constitutional Reform Committee. The salary for that position was said to be approximately $3 million per annum.

[3] Dr Sahu Khan said that Mr Shariff then made a series of representations about various sums Dr Sahu Khan needed to pay to facilitate the appointment. Dr Sahu Khan told the High Court he trusted Mr Shariff and in reliance on the representations he paid Mr Shariff FJD 173,000 for this purpose. He also said that Mr Shariff promised to pay a further sum if the appointment did not eventuate. No appointment was made and Dr Sahu Khan filed proceedings in the High Court in deceit seeking to recover both the sum that he had paid to Mr Shariff and also the money apparently owed because there was no appointment. Dr Sahu Khan did not plead there was a contract between him and Mr Shariff.

[4] Mr Shariff did not participate in the proceeding and it proceeded by way of formal proof.

[…]

Full decision: fileDecision_54.pdf

Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url