Attorney General of Fiji v Cama [2002] FJHC 209; HBC0137j.2001s (8 February 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 137 OF 2001

IN THE MATTER of Section 169 of Part XXIV of the Land Transfer Act, Cap. 131.

Between:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI
Plaintiff

and

MRS MAVOA CAMA
Defendant

Ms. N. Baswaiya with Ms. N. Karan for Plaintiff
Mr. R. Matabalavu for Respondent

JUDGMENT

This is a s169 application under the Land Transfer Act Cap. 131 (the >Act=) by Originating Summons filed 5 April 2001 for an order that the defendant show cause why she should not give immediate vacant possession of land being Quarters No.2, Service Street, Vaturua Lane, Suva.

This application is identical to the one made in Civil Action No. HBC0136.2001 between the plaintiff and Mrs. Susana Koroi. The affidavits filed herein and the legal submissions are almost identical except that the defendant is different.

Some of the facts peculiar to the defendant are as follows: she occupies Quarters No. 2 at Service Street, Vaturua Lane; her husband died on 8 December 1999; the rent in arrears was $4327.96 and she was given Notice to Quit on 22 January 2001.

The defendant in her Affidavit in Reply raised the same argument as the defendant in 136 of 2001 in regard to her assertion about the sale of the land to the sitting occupants. This same Reply from the plaintiff was given, except, inter alia, that the deceased (the husband of the defendant) resigned from the Public Service. The defendant=s eligibility and entitlement ceased upon the passing away of her husband in December 1999. As submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff the governing rules in relation to eligibility and entitlement to Government Quarters are contained in Order 601 of the General Orders 1993 which is prepared by the Public Service Commission. Order 601 sets out who the officers are who are entitled to government quarters. The Order does not state that entitlement to quarters will be given to family members after the death of a Civil Servant occupying the quarters.

In a somewhat similar situation in Attorney General (on behalf of the Director of Lands and Surveyor General) v Dr. Patrick Muma Civil Action No. HBC0496.1993S in making an Order for vacant possession of Government Quarters, at pages 8 and 9 of my judgment, I stated as follows:

AWhat right has he to the possession when he is no longer employed by Government?; and under what circumstances and by whom has he been Apermitted to reside@ is not clear to entitle him to remain in possession. It was on the defendant on the hearing of the Summons to show cause but he has dismally failed to do so.@

In any case there is no documentary evidence or any offer made to the deceased or the defendant for the sale of the said quarters.

I see no merit in the defendant=s counsel=s submissions in law.

I do not propose to repeat here what I have said on a point of law in my judgment in CA 0136.2001 delivered this day, suffice it to say that the judgment in this case is the same as in that other case for the reasons stated therein.

For these reasons, it is ordered that the defendant give vacant possession of the said Quarters No. 2 within one month from the date of this judgment with no order as to costs.

D. Pathik
Judge

At Suva
8 February 2002