Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Action No. HBC 80 of 2011
BETWEEN:
TEVITA DAKUNITURAGA, LORIMA TURAGANISOLEVU and VILIAME NAQELE for and on behalf of Mataqali Rara, Naduru Village, Tailevu.
PLAINTIFFS
AND:
AMEO LIACI of Vunivaudamu No. 2, Vuci Road, Nausori.
DEFENDANT
BEFORE: MASTER DEEPTHI AMARATUNGA
COUNSELS: Ms Rigsby T of QORO LEGAL for the Plaintiffs
: Ms Raikaci N of RAVONO & RAIKACI LAW for the Defendant
DATE OF HEARING: 4th July 2011
DATE OF RULING: 6th September 2011
RULING
'That I am the Head of Mataqali Rara and that our Mataqali is the registered owner of all that piece and parcel of land known as Vunivaudmu No 3 [part of ] and, situate in the Province of Tailevu in the island of Viti Levu and more property described in Native Lease Number 16431.'
'Being the Head of Mataqali Rara does not entitle Tevita Dakunituraga to depose the affidavit in his own right without the express authority of the other Plaintiffs.
Mataqali Rara of which the purported Plaintiffs claim to be its members is not the registered owner of all that piece and parcel of land known as Vunivaudamu No 3 (part of) situated in the province of Tailevu in the island of Viti Levu, within the definition of the word registered in Section 21(2) of the Land Transfer act.
Mataqali Rara is the native and not the registered owner of the said land, the registration which is made in the Register of Native Lands which record all the descriptions and boundaries of all native lands that had been decided or settled by the Native Lands Commission.
Neither Mataqali Rara nor its members are the registered proprietors of the subject land as such are precluded from instituting the present proceedings.
The so called Plaintiffs are misleading this Honorable Court in making reference to Native Lease Number 16431 which has no relevance whatsoever on this proceeding, in that the said lease had long expired on the 31st of December, 2006 and the subject land has since reverted to the native owners.'
So, it is clear that the annexed native lease is now expired and it cannot be the basis of this application.
'All land subject to the provisions of the Land (Transfer and Registration) Ordinance and every estate or interest therein and all instruments and dealings affecting any such land, estate or interest shall from the commencement of this Act be deemed to be subject to the provisions of this Act.'
(emphasis is added)
'5. The following freehold and leasehold land shall be subject to the provisions of this Act
Section 3 of the Native Lands Act states as follows:
'Native lands shall be held by native Fijians according to native custom as evidenced by usage and tradition. Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained such lands may be cultivated, allotted and dealt with by native Fijians as amongst themselves according to their native customs and subject to any regulations made by the Fijian Affairs Board, and in the event of any dispute arising for legal decision in which the question of the tenure of land amongst native Fijians is relevant all courts of law shall decide such disputes according to such regulations or native custom and usage which shall be ascertained as a matter of fact by the examination of witnesses capable of throwing light thereupon.
(Substituted by 9 of 1907, s. 2, and amended by 12 of 1940, s. 35.)
(emphasis is mine)
The Court Orders as follows:
Dated at Suva this 6th Day of September, 2011.
Mr D. Amaratunga
Acting Master of the High Court
Suva
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2011/504.html