Looking like an advance fee fraud, promises that Dr Sahu Khan’s appointment as chief legal adviser to the Fiji government was imminent stayed on hold following further requests for more payments pending an announcement. No appointment was ever made. His claim against Mohammed Shariff for FJD653,300 damages failed; dishonesty was not proved.
The High Court was told former president of the Fiji Law Society Dr Sahu Khan, who now lives in New Zealand, was contacted by email in late 2012. Mr Shariff represented himself as a go-between offering him a high-level legal position within the Fiji government. An indirect approach was needed, he said, given the sensitivities of Fiji politics. Dr Sahu Khan and Mr Shariff were known to each other; Mr Shariff had borrowed FJD30,000 from a Khan family company. Dr Sahu Khan expressed interest in the job offer. What followed was a series of urgent emails through December 2014 to February 2015 each requiring cash transfers totalling FJD30,800 to clear certain matters before his appointment could be announced: payment to confirm his appointment ($2500); for registration of his contract ($1600); payment of fines supposedly due to the Independent Legal Services Commission ($6500); payment for release of goods seized by Fiji authorities ($3750); tax arrears ($8800); and further payments supposedly demanded by the Independent Legal Services Commission for an alleged breach of trust ($7500). Dr Sahu Khan made payment in each case, in anticipation of a job with a promised annual salary in the region of three million Fiji dollars.
Dr Sahu Khan sued for deceit when no job eventuated. Mr Shariff did not defend the claim. The High Court dismissed Dr Sahu Khan’s claim, for lack of evidence. Clear and cogent evidence of dishonesty is required before courts award damages for deceit. Justice Fitzgerald was critical of the disorganised and incomplete evidence put before the court. Allegations of dishonesty alone were not enough. Prima facie proof was needed that Mr Shariff knew representations made were false.
Evidence was given that Dr Sahu Khan’s developing suspicions led him to tell Mr Shariff he would be demanding FJD 480,000 ‘special damages’ if the job did not eventuate. This could not be recovered in a claim for deceit, Justice Fitzgerald ruled.
Dr Sahu Khan’s subsequent appeals were unsuccessful.
Sahu Khan v. Shariff – High Court (28.02.17), Court of Appeal (13.12.18) & Supreme Court (14.05.19)
19.086