Housing Authority v Ufamarata [2004] FJHC 327; HBC0540J.2003S (16 June 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0540 OF 2003S

BETWEEN:

HOUSING AUTHORITY
PLAINTIFF

AND:

FOSTINO VERSONI UFAMARATA and
MAKERETA BOSE UFAMARATA
DEFENDANT

Counsel for the Plaintiff) : Ms B. Devi: Maharaj Chandra & Assoc.
) : I. Vesikula: Housing Authority, Legal Services
First Defendant : In Person

Date of Extempore Judgment: 16 June, 2004
Time of Extempore Judgment: 11.30 a.m.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

This is an O.88 application. The Court has already made an Order for vacant possession earlier today. I now give the reasons.

The Defendants are registered proprietors of the land described as Housing Authority Sub-Lease No. 397148 (Lot 16 on D.P. 7451) upon which they had erected a two bedroom concrete single dwelling house. The house is a pre-fabricated which the Defendants purchased from Northern Projects Falwood (N.P.F.) through a loan from the Plaintiff. To their dismay, the Defendants found many defects on assemblage. They persevered and instead of taking the company NPF to task, decided to do the patching-up themselves, with additional funds from the Plaintiff. As of October 1995, the Defendants loan with the Plaintiff stood at $23,069.00 with weekly instalments of $100.42. According to the Plaintiff, since the Certificate of Completion and Permit to occupy the house was issued on 23 October, 1996, the Defendants have only made five repayments for their loan. The default in repayments is readily conceded by the Defendants.

The Defendants have gone to a great length to explain to the Court the reasons for their misfortune. It is a story tragically of ill-informed and ill-advised but sincere and hardworking family, who believed in the goodness of everyone around them. It is quite clear from their evidence, that the company N.P.F., that sold them the house, was legally obliged to ensure that the product they sold was at the very least, liveable. That the company officials were uncompromising when the Defendants approached them about the defects, should have resulted in the Defendants seeking legal advice. This they unfortunately failed to do, to their own downfall.

Pursuant to its powers vested under section 79 of the Property Law Act (Cap 130), and as provided for under paragraph 14 of the mortgage document, the Plaintiff has already entered into an agreement of sale of the property to 3rd Parties. Any right of redemption which would have accrued to the Defendant are now extinct.

In the end, this Court finds that the Plaintiff as mortgagee, has properly exercised its rights to the sale of the Defendants property after the failure of Defendants to repay their loan.

Order is made for the Defendants to vacate the property. Execution is stayed for 2 months to allow the Defendants to find alternative accommodation.

Each party to bear its own costs.

F. Jitoko
JUDGE