Attorney-General of Fiji v Catarogo [2005] FJHC 499; HBC0022J.2005B (25 August 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0022J of 2005B

BETWEEN:

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF FIJI
PLAINTIFF

AND

SOLOMONE CATAROGO
DEFENDANT

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Anare Tuilevuka: Attorney-General’s Chambers
Counsel for the Defendant: Ami Kohli: Kolhi & Singh

Date of Judgment: 25 August 2005
Time of Judgment: 2.00 p.m.

JUDGMENT

The Judgment I delivered on 25 August, 2005 at Labasa is recalled for reasons of clerical errors and land misdescriptions as contained in the Plaintiff’s motion of 31 August, 2005.

In its place the following judgment is substituted.

The Defendant has been in occupation of a Government quarters at Wainikoro built on a Native Lease since the political upheaval of 2000 and coincidently with the expiry of the government lease on the property. Subsequently, the lease has been re-newed. The Defendant has remained on the property since, despite numerous attempts, including a Magistrate’s eviction order.

The land is described as NL 26680, Navoalevu shown as Lot 1 on Plan No. M 2386 containing 3r 8p situated at Nadogo, Macuata.

Under Section 169 of the LTA, the Defendant has to show cause why he should not be removed from the property. As far as I can ascertain from the affidavit filed by the Defendant, he claimed that he moved into the property at the time the previous lease had expired and as landlord he had the right to do so. He then argued that the land is needed by his Mataqali and that in support of this he said that his Mataqali had already agreed that the Government could lease an alternative site in the place of the expired one. Native Land Trust Board nevertheless went ahead and re-newed the Government lease on the same property.

In the Court’s view, the Defendant’s argument is totally misconstrued. First, the right of re-entry after the expiry of a tenancy is governed by specific procedures. There needs to be formal notification and in this case, the appropriate authority to do so in the Native Land Trust Board, who is the trustee acting on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant cannot take it upon himself to act, not only in the place of Native Land Trust Board but also on behalf of his Mataqali. There is nothing in his affidavit to support any of these two options.

Further, the issue of renewal of the lease has been competently dealt with, as the law requires, by Native Land Trust Board which body is empowered to act on behalf of the landowners. The re-newal of the lease having been executed, the Government takes a good lease or tenancy. Should the landowner feel aggrieved about the re-newal, it is against the Native Land Trust Board that his remedy lies. It is not for him to show his disagreement by infringing on the rights of the tenant to occupancy. Whatever grievance, he or his Mataqali may have, should be directed at his or their trustee, the Native Land Trust Board. The Government is not involved.

I order that the Defendant vacate the property within a month from today.

No order as to costs

F. Jitoko
JUDGE

Dated at Labasa
25^th August 2005