Naulivou v Native Land Trust Board [2004] FJHC 377; HBC0069.1994L (25 February 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0069 OF 1994L

BETWEEN:

TIMOCI NAGAGA NAULIVOU
Plaintiff

AND:

NATIVE LAND TRUST BOARD
Defendant

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr. Kitione Vuataki
Counsel for the Defendant: Mr. Graham E. Leung

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 25 February 2004

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

Before the court is a Notice of Motion filed by the defendant seeking that the judgement of Gates J. of the 12^th November 2003 be stayed pending the determination by the Fiji Court of Appeal of the appeal filed by the defendant on 24^th December 2003. There was also before the court a Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff seeking an interim payment of one half of the rental proceeds of the subject land after deducting costs pending the determination of the appeal.

The proceedings before Gates J. concerned the ownership of and therefore the entitlement to the profits from Vomo Island near Viseisei. His Lordship found that the subject land was freehold and that the subject freehold to be owned by the two Yavusas as tenants in common. His Lordship further found that the income from the subject freehold was to be distributed on the basis of the 50% of the income to each Yavusa.

The evidence before the court comprises on behalf of the plaintiff and affidavit of the plaintiff sworn on the 9^th of January 2004 and for the defendant, an affidavit of Semi Tabakanalagi sworn on 24 December 2003 and an affidavit of Waisale Tora Tuinamataya sworn on 24 February 2004. The court has had the benefit of written and oral submissions from counsel for the plaintiff and oral submissions from counsel for the defendant.

The fundamental consideration of the court is where does the balance of convenience lie. I have been referred to American Cyanamid v. Ethicon [1975] UKHL 1; [1975] A.C. 396. The plaintiff also refers the court to AG v Pacoil Fiji Limited ABU0014 of 1999 and in particular page 3 of that judgment where the Court of Appeal said:-

“It is true that generally a successful party is entitled to the fruit of the judgement and the party against whom judgment has been entered has been required to show special circumstances for a stay. However, one sufficient ground for a stay can be in the absence of reasonable prospects that the money paid over will be recovered in the event of a successful appeal.”

The plaintiff also refers the court to a further decision in a single Judge of Appeal, the President, Sir Moti Tikaram in Bryan Charles Ferrier Watson v Sultan Mohammed Civil Appeal ABU0008 of 1991 where His Lordship said: -

“Although the respondents are in general, entitled to enjoy the fruits of their victory without any delay it does appear to me that if the stay is not granted the applicant/appellants appeal, if successful, is likely to be rendered nugatory or substantially nugatory.”

The plaintiff also refers the court to a further decision of Sir Moti Tikaram, as President of Fiji Court of Appeal in Haroon Ali Shah v Marcella Bugeja ABU0028 of 1997 where His Lordship said:-

“As I have indicated this is an unusual case. There is need to balance the competing interests of the parties on the scale of fairness.

In my view the ends of justice will be met if I granted a stay on terms whereby the interests of both parties are protected. In this regard I bear in mind that in the event the appeal fails the respondent will be entitled to interest on judgment on any unpaid amount.”

Finally, the court was referred to Westpac Banking Corporation v Fiji Forest Sawmilling Co. Limited ABU0045 of 1996 where the court said: -

“In my view the applicant’s basis for asking a stay order is in the circumstances of this case, wholly unreasonable and unfair. There can be no doubt that if the stay is granted the respondent will be greatly prejudiced whereas if it refused the applicant is not likely to suffer any real prejudice. Certainly the applicant will not be ruined. If any party is likely to be ruined it will be the respondent which has been waiting for the insurance proceeds and the surplus funds since 1994.”

The plaintiff submits that no matter what the decision the Court of Appeal that the plaintiff will be entitled to 50% of the profit from the land as the Court of Appeal decision will only bear on the nature of the ownership of the land. The defendant however submits that the notice of appeal which is annexed to the affidavit of Semi Tabakanalagi details as one of the grounds of appeal that: -

“The Learned Trial Judge erred as a matter of fact and law in holding that the respondent/plaintiff were entitled to part ownership of the subject land.”

When considering the quoted ground of appeal together with the other nine grounds of appeal, the court is again faced with the issue to which I referred earlier and that is, where does the balance of convenience lie. Will there be prejudice to the defendant if payment is made to the plaintiff pending the determination of the appeal by the Fiji Court of Appeal?

Whilst counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff will maintain an entitlement to 50% of the profit from the land, I am unable to be satisfied that this is so bearing in mind the grounds of appeal to which I referred.

If monies are paid to the plaintiff then recovery, if required, may be difficult or impossible whilst acknowledging that the plaintiff should be entitled to the fruits of the judgment in his favour at the earliest opportunity. The court must balance this against the other issues and considerations and in particular the preservation of the fund for the potential benefit of all of the parties.

To this end, I am of the opinion that the entitlement of the plaintiff pursuant to the judgment of Gates J. should be held by the defendant pending the determination of the appeal.

The Orders of the Court therefore are: -

1. That the judgement delivered by Gates J. on 12 November 2003 be stayed pending the determination of the appeal filed by the defendant on 24 December 2003;
   
2. That the defendant hold in trust one half of the rental income less expenses of the subject land pending the determination of the appeal and that such monies be invested to earn interest for the benefit of the plaintiff or such other person or persons that may be adjudged entitled;
   
3. That the plaintiff’s motion filed on 12 January 2004 be dismissed;
   

4. That the costs of both motions be costs in the cause.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

AT LAUTOKA
25 FEBRUARY 2004