Ralulu v Waqanitoga [2004] FJHC 229; HBC0086J.2004S (21 July 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBC0086J OF 2004S

BETWEEN:

UWATE RALULU and SAINIMERE TEVUI
aka SELAI NAIMAIKORO both of Seaqaqa,
Fiji. Cultivator and Domestic Duties.
Respectively as the Administrators in the
Estate of REAPI DABEA aka REAPI DABEA LAWAVAU.
PLAINTIFF

AND:

RUPENI WAQANITOGA
of 22 Bakshi Street, Samabula, Suva.
DEFENDANT

Counsel for the Plaintiff: R.P. Singh: Kohli & Singh
Counsel for the Defendant: In Person

Date of Judgment: 21 July 2004
Time of Judgment: 9.30 a.m.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

This is a section 169 Land Transfer Act application.

The Plaintiffs are Administrators of the estate of their mother, one Reapi Dabea also known as Reapi Dabea Lawavau. The latter is the registered proprietor of a piece of land known as C.T. 12290 being Lot 12 on DP 2298 located at 22 Bakshi Street, Samabula. On the property is a residential double story building. The property was previously owned by Reapi Dabea’s husband one Apolosi Tevui Lawavau who came into possession of it in September 1975. Upon his death the property passed through to his wife as Administratrix and upon her subsequent death, the Plaintiffs have now been appointed as the administrators.

The Defendant, who has been residing on the property since 1975, is being asked to vacate the property, as he is, according to the Plaintiff, staying in it illegally.

The Defendant in his defence says that the property was originally bought by his father and Apolosi Tevui Lawavau. They were brothers. They had however purchased the property as trustees of the village of Natua, Seaqaqa, in Macuata with the lease money from Native Land Trust Board and a $32,000.00 loan from the Bank of New Zealand. According to the Defendant the purchased property was intended by the village elders to be used by his people during their visit to Suva. It was intended to also provide temporary shelter for those from the village of Natua, who sought employment and education in and around Suva. According to the Defendant, the property could never be sold as it remained in the trust for the use and benefit of his village.

This Court had given the opportunity to the Defendant to provide evidence as to the existence of such a scheme. Unfortunately, inspite of his efforts visiting NLTB and others for assistance, he has not been able to provide them. It could very well be , that there had existed such a scheme, but without any evidence to support it, the case for the Plaintiff is clear cut.

The Court will only recognise the rights of those interests provided by law. In this case, there is irrefutable evidence from the Title’s Office, that the property was owned by Apolosi Tevui Lawavau, transferred to his wife Reapi Dabea Lawavau, and is presently in the hands of the Plaintiffs, as administrators. There is no evidence produced to say that the property is held in trust for the people of Natua village.

Under the circumstances, this Court has no alternative but to allow the Plaintiffs’ application.

There will be an Order for Vacant possession against the Defendant. Execution of the Order to be stayed for 2 months to give time to the Defendant to relocate with his family.

No Order as to costs.

F. Jitoko
JUDGE

At Suva
21 July 2004