|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Action No. HBC 217 of 2016
BETWEEN
SERUPEPELI ROKOTUILOMA a self-employed and villager of Tamavua Village in
the Province of Naitasiri, suing in his personal capacity as a member of the
Mataqali Muaicolo of the Yavusa Matanikutu in the Province of Naitasiri,
and for and on behalf of the Mataqali Muaicolo of the
Yavusa Matanikutu of Tamavua Village in the
Province of Naitasiri.
FIRST PLAINTIFF
AND
MALAKAI LEVULA a sales representative and store employee of
Tamavua suing as a member of the Mataqali Muaicolo of the
Yavusa Matanikutu in the Province of Naitasiri, and for and
on behalf of the Mataqali Muaicolo of the Yavusa
Matanikutu of Tamavua Village in the
Province of Naitasiri.
SECOND PLAINTIFF
AND
THE iTAUKEI LAND TRUST BOARD a body corporate of
Victoria Parade, Suva.
FIRST DEFENDANT
AND
BENTLEY WAN CHANG, AKANISI MUAROR and LYNNIE RICHE being
THE TRUSTEES FOR HOMES OF HOPE a religious body registered under the
Religious Body Registration Act and having its registered office at
85 Navurevure Road, Tamavua.
SECOND DEFENDANT
Counsel : Ms. Raikaci N. for the Plaintiffs
Ms. Vokavanua Q. for the 1st Defendant
Ms. Nayacalevu S. for the 2nd defendant
Dates of Hearing : 5th, 6th and 7th October 2020
Date of Judgment : 13th November 2020
JUDGMENT
[1] The plaintiffs instituted these proceedings by writ of summons which was subsequently amended seeking the following reliefs:
[2] The subject matter of this action is known as Wailoku which is in extent of 16.3272 hectares. The plaintiff avers in the statement of claim that the 1st defendant had permitted the 2nd defendant to occupy the land since 2004 for 50 years and the registered lease was issued in 2008 for 99 years. The plaintiffs allege that the 1st defendant has failed to administer the leasing of the land for the benefit of the Mataqali Muaicolo as is required by law. The particulars of failure as averred in the statement of claim are as follows:
[3] The plaintiffs allege that the 2nd defendant failed to;
[4] The plaintiffs also allege that the 2nd defendant has shifted the boundaries beyond what was originally approved and encroached on to the plaintiffs’ Mataqali land depriving them from using the land and the river. The plaintiff also allege that the 2nd defendant in breach of the lease agreement rear livestock on the land.
[5] In paragraph 5 of the statement of defendant the 1st defendant states as follows:
[6] The 1st defendant has also averred in the statement of defence that this land was a non-reserved land and therefore available for leasing once the previous lease expires.
[7] The 2nd defendant while denying the allegations against them avers in its statement defence that the plaintiffs should be estopped from making any claim for alleged breaches since they had not made any claim for over the years and also the plaintiff has failed to give notice of breach required under section 105 of the Property Law Act.
[8] At the pre-trial conference the parties admitted the following facts:
[9] The 1st and 2nd defendants entered into an agreement (P9) for lease in January 2004. The proposed period of lease is was 50 years and the yearly rent was $1000.00 payable half yearly. Subsequently a registered lease (P15) was granted for 99 years and the extent of the land was 16.3272 hectares (about 40 acres).
[10] The 1st plaintiff testified that the name of his Mataqali is Muaicolo and Yavusa is Matanikutu and tendered in evidence marked as “P1” the Certificate of Registration in the Vola ni Kawa Bula (Register of native Land owners). The 2nd plaintiff also tendered his certificate of registration as “P27”. The 1st plaintiff said he had the authority to institute these proceedings from the certain members of the Mataqali Muaicolo. The 1st plaintiff tendered a list of the members of the Mataqali endorsed by the Native Lands Commission. Although he has stated in the statement of claim that he is also representing the Mataqali Muaicolo, he has not been authorised the entire Mataqali.
[11] The plaintiffs allege that the 1st defendant acted in breach the above provisions in granting the lease to the 2nd defendant in that they did not consult the Mataqali Mauicolo to ascertain whether the land was required for the maintenance and support of the members of the Mataqali.
[12] The plaintiffs is evidence of the plaintiffs is that they were not consulted by the 1st defendant before granting the lease and they challenged the consent form supposed to have been signed by them.
[13] Section 8(1) of the iTaukei Lands Trust Act 1940 provides:
Subject to the provisions of section 9, it shall be lawful for the Board to grant leases or licences of portions of iTaukei Land not included in an iTaukei reserve for such purposes and subject to such terms and conditions as to renewals or otherwise as may be prescribed.
Section 9 of the iTaukei Lands Trust Act 1940 provides:
No iTaukei land shall be dealt with by way of lease or licence under the provisions of this Act unless the Board is satisfied that the land proposed to be made the subject of such lease or licence is not being beneficially occupied by the iTaukei owners, and is not likely during the currency of such lease or licence to be required by the iTaukei owners for their use, maintenance or support.
[14] There evidence is that six of the members of the Mataqali including the plaintiff held a meeting and after few weeks of the meeting the son of Turaga ni Mataqali brought a paper and obtained their signatures on a blank white paper and there was nothing written there and the 1st plaintiff said he was told to put the name and the date and sign. The plaintiffs said they signed the blank document consenting to grant a lease of 20 acres but the extent of the land has been increased to 40 acres. The witness Kaseinaseva, the Senior Estate Officer of the 1st defendant, explained the procedure the 1st defendant follows once an application for a lease is received. He stated that the land leased to the 2nd defendant is not a reserved land
[15] It is also their evidence that the 1st defendant did not have a meeting with the land owners. The evidence of the witness for the 1st defendant testified that they held a meeting with the Turaga ni Mataqali and handed them the necessary form for their consent to lease which the Head of Mataqali and Head of Yavusa approved the lease.
[16] The plaintiffs allege that Viliame Niubasaga and Timaleti Lesuma did not sign the document giving their consent to the lease because Viliame Niubasaga was abroad at that time and Timaleti Lesuma passed away in 1992. However, the plaintiffs did not provide any proof of this. It would not have been difficult for the plaintiffs to tender the death certificate of Timaleti Lesuma and adduce evidence that Viiliame Niumbasaga was not in the country at the time of signing of this document (P8).
[17] If these signatures have been forged the plaintiffs should have taken action against the person who was responsible for forging the signatures but taken no action against the persons who forged the signatures. According to the plaintiffs it was the son of the Turaga ni Mataqali who obtained the signatures. The defendants cannot be held responsible for that.
[18] It is also important to note that there are two fractions of Mataqali Muaicolo. This was admitted by the 1st plaintiff in cross-examination. According to witness Kaseinaseva The 1st defendant consulted the Turaga ni Mataqali who consented to the lease. He also said if the land is not a reserve land they do not require the consent of the Mataqali although they held a meeting with the landowners and obtained their consent and the fact that the land is not a reserved land is not in dispute.
[19] Section 12(1) of the iTaukei Land Trust Act provides:
Except as may be otherwise provided by regulations made thereunder, it shall not be lawful for any lessee under this Act to alienate or deal with the land comprised in his or her lease or any part thereof, whether by sale, transfer or sublease or in any other manner whatsoever without the consent of the Board as lessor first had and obtained. The granting or withholding of consent shall be in the absolute discretion of the Board, and any sale, transfer, sublease or other unlawful alienation or dealing effected without such consent shall be null and void,...
[20] In Buruavatu v Native Land Trust Board [2014] FJHC 778; HBC49.2010 (27 October 2014) the court held:
The Plaintiff also alleges that they were not consulted or their consent was not obtained in granting the lease to the 2nd Defendant. It was held in Solomoni Cavunisautu Naiduki V Native Land Trust Board and another [2000] FLR 58 as follows
"I therefore conclude from these authorities that the 1st Defendant has no duty in law to consult with land owners before it makes any decision affecting native land held on trust for them"
[21] However, from the evidence it appears that the plaintiffs did not have any objection in granting the lease but the issue was the extent of the land that was to be leased to the 2nd defendant.
[22] The land leased to the 2nd defendant is shown in the survey plan attached to the agreement for lease and the land has been clearly described in the survey plan attached to the Registered Lease.
[23] It is a fact admitted by the parties that there was no development activities on this land. Prior to the lease granted to the 2nd defendant a Chinese person had been cultivating this land. Witness Vakamoce said after Chinese person left his family was farming the land and in 1999 Turaga ni Mataqali stopped them from farming. Since then until Homes of Hope entered the land there had been no development activities on the land and the remaining portion of the land is still a thick jungle with huge trees. Although it is in evidence that the plaintiffs and some other members of the mataqali have been planning to construct houses or an apartment building not steps have been taken to initiate any kind of development work. The reason offered by them is that there is no access road to the remaining portion of land and only way of access is across the land given to Homes of Hope which they have fenced. For these reasons the court is of the view that the lease granted to Homes of Hope is to the benefit of the Mataqali.
[24] Another allegation levelled against the defendant is that by leasing this portion of the land to Homes of Hope the members of Mataqali have been deprived of their access to the remaining portion of the land. Witness Vakamoce said in his evidence that Homes of Hope allowed the people to go across the land whenever a request was made.
[25] The survey plan attached to the agreement for lease at page 8 of the plaintiff’s bundle of documents shows a reservation for 12 meters wide land leading to the remaining portion of the land. The position of the plaintiffs is that this portion of land is a steep land and very difficult to use as an access road. It is evidenced that the entire land is hilly. Therefore, it would be practically impossible to allocate an access road which is flat and smooth. If the plaintiffs are really interested in developing the land, developing the access road should be part of their development plan.
[26] As I have stated earlier in this judgment the plaintiffs have allege that the Homes of Hope has encroached upon the “Vaga Creek” which on the north of the land leased out to them and shifted the boundaries. From the plan marked “P5” it is clear the water creek is not part of the land leased out. The 2nd defendant denies these allegations. The only evidence the court has before it on this issue is the oral testimony of the plaintiffs which is absolutely insufficient for the court to arrive at the conclusion that there is in fact an encroachment upon the water creek by the 2nd defendant and the shifting of the boundaries. There must be a survey plan showing the encroachment or shifting of the boundaries but no such evidence was adduced by the plaintiff.
[27] The next issue is whether the 1st defendant properly paid to the Mataqali the amounts of money received from the Homes of Hope. The witness for the 2nd defendant gave the details of the payments made to the 1st defendant by way of rent and also the payments made to the Turaga ni mataqali.
[28] The annual rental payable half yearly by the Homes of Hope is $1000.00 a year. The premium paid for the 50 year lease with processing charges, stamp duty etc. was 32,646.00 (1D10). When the period of lease was increased to 99 years the 2nd defendant has paid another $30,000.00 in four instalments (2D5 7 2D6). Apart from these payment the 2nd defendant has paid $20,000.00 as goodwill payment and out this $20,000.00, $15,000.00 has been paid into the Turaga ni Mataqali’s personal account which is borne out by receipt tendered as “2D17”.
[29] There have been occasions where the members of Mataqali requested for advance payments.
[30] The payment narration tendered as “1D11” and the same payment narration has also been tendered as “1D12” is as follows:
| Date | Payment Narration | Amount |
| 5/01/2004 | Manual Advance received by Joveci Sai | $ 6, 100.00 |
| 23/01/2004 | Manual advance received by Joveci Sai | $ 2,000.00 |
| 16/03/2002 | Manual advance received by Simione Sugucolo | $ 2,000.00 |
| 01/04/2005 | Payment 6 Month distribution | $ 11, 316.27 |
| 15/05/2005 | Refund to Fa & Co Mat Muaicolo Tamavua | $ 636.76 |
| 15/05/2005 | ADV/REQ. Refund of Over Payment Fa & Co 15/5/2005 | $ 953. 54 |
| 03/10/2005 | Payment 6 Month distribution | $ 11, 196.98 |
| 01/05/2006 | Payment 6 Month distribution | $ 5, 385. 48 |
| 20/07/2006 | Manual advance received by Serupepeli Rokotuiloma | $ 3, 141.53 |
| 20/07/2006 | Manual advance received by Ponipate Vula | $2, 243.95 |
| 17/10/2006 | Payment 6 Month distribution | $ 335.51 |
| 31/12/2006 | Manual advance received by Serupepeli Rokotuiloma | $ 3, 230.04 |
| | Total | $48, 540.06 |
[31] The advanced payments received by the members of Mataqali are supported by documents. Document “1D13” is the declaration requesting the payment of $6100.00. Paragraph 1 of P 25 reads as follows:
We, the, members of Mataqali Muaicolo humbly request for advance of the amount of $2000.00 (Two Thousand Dollars) and to be repaid from our lease money.
[32] The learned counsel for the plaintiffs cross-examine the witness for the 1st defendant and suggested that the above withdrawal was from the Yavusa and not from the Mataqali for the reason that the address of the request letter reads as Yavusa Matanikutu, C/o – Mataqali Muaicolo, Princess Road, Tamauva, Suva. However, in paragraph 1 of the request letter as I have reproduced above he has requested for the advance payment as a member of the Mataqali Muaicolo. It is also important to note that the 1st plaintiff is also a signatory to this request. The author of this document is now deceased. This is a statutory declaration which has the effect of an affidavit. The plaintiffs are not qualified to speak on the contents of this document unless they have a personal knowledge about its contents.
[33] The 1st plaintiff has taken $6371.57 as advance payments from the 1st defendant.
[34] This account shows that on various occasions the members of the Mataqali have withdrawn money out of the lease money paid by the 2nd defendant. The account also shows that from 01st April 2005 to 17th October 2006 the 1st defendant has paid $12,234.24 for distribution. Apart from these payments the 1st defendant has paid to the plaintiffs’ solicitor as ordered by the Magistrates’ Court in action No. MBC 2769 of 1995 (2D1). In that case the court ordered as follows:
That the 1st Defendant do pay to the plaintiff’s solicitors, Messrs Fa & Company of Level 4, FNPF Plaza, Victoria Parade, Suva, all further lease moneys that are payable and owning to the plaintiff and those that he represents in this action every six (6) months as and when they fall due.
[35] It is to be noted that the plaintiff in that case has instituted proceedings for and on behalf of some of the members of the certain Mataqalis of which the 1st plaintiff was also a member.
[36] The total amount that was ordered to pay into the Solicitors account was $14,329.86. From the above it appears that the some of the members has withdrawn fairly large sum of money for their own benefit depriving the other members from what was due to them and now complained they were not paid by the 1st defendant.
[37] The plaintiffs also allege that the amount of money they received was very small and it was about 2 to 3 dollars. The 2nd defendant has promptly paid the lease money to the 1st defendant. This land was leased out to the 2nd defendant for an annual rental of $1000.00 and the only way the plaintiffs can receive more lease money is to increase the lease. It is evident that this land, at the time it was leased out to the 2nd defendant, was an abandoned land without any development activities and it was like a jungle. The 2nd defendant has at its own expense has developed the land. If the position of the plaintiffs is that this land could have been given on a higher rent they should have adduced evidence in that regard but no such evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs.
[38] Clause 2(p) of the registered lease reads as follows:
Not to permit or suffer to remain on the land any horses cattle, goats, swine or poultry.
[39] The witness for 2nd defendant admitted in evidence that there were animal and the witness discussed about it with the 1st defendant. If any party to a contract violates a condition contained in the contract the other party is entitled to take a suitable action provided for within the agreement. Only the parties to an agreement are bound by its terms and condition. The witness for the 2nd defendant said in his evidence that the Homes of Hope discussed this matter with the 1st defendant. Whatever the action that should be taken about this is in the hands of the 1st defendant.
[40] For the above reasons the court makes the following orders.
ORDERS
Lyone Seneviratne
JUDGE
13th November 2020
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2020/940.html