IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(WESTERN DIVISION) AT LAUTOKA
EXERCISING CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO.  HBC 61 OF 2015

BETWEEN: 
SANGEETA RESHMI as sole Executrix and Trustee 
of the Estate of Jag Lal also known as Jaglal, late of Legalega, Nadi
1st PLAINTIFF

AND: 	
SANGEETA RESHMI of Legalega, Nadi. Domestic Duty.
2nd PLAINTIFF

AND: 	
HOUSING AUTHROITY OF FIJI, a body corporate duly 
                        constituted under the provision of the Housing Act and
            having its Head Office at Valelevu.
1st DEFENDANT

AND: 	
VIMLESH KUMAR SHARMA of Fiji Island Revenue &
                           Customs Authority, Lautoka.			
2nd DEFENDANT

AND: 	
REGISTRAR OF TITLES of Suva
3rd DEFENDANT (NOMINAL)

AND:	 
ITAUKEI LAND TRUST BOARD a body corporate of 
 Victoria Parade, Suva incorporated pursuant to the Native
    Land Trust Act 134, Laws of Fiji.
4th DEFENDANT (NOMINAL)

BEFORE: A.M. Mohamed Mackie J.

APPEARANCES: Mr. E. Maopa, for the Plaintiff.
: Ms. Ravai, for the 1st Defendant
: 2nd Defendant appears in Person
: Ms. Raman J. for the nominal 3rd Defendant
: Mr. Lakanivalu for the nominal 4th Defendant.

DATE OF HEARING: 12th March 2025
W. SUBMISSIONS	: By the Plaintiff- filed on 7th March 2025.
: By the 1st Defendant – filed on 10th March 2025.
: 2nd Defendant made short oral submissions.
: No submission filed by the 3rd & 4th Defendants (Nominal).

RULING: Delivered on 15th May 2025.

RULING

A.	INTRODUCTION:

1.	This Ruling pertains to the purported “SUMMONS FOR STAY OF EXECUTION” filed by the Plaintiffs on 14th May 2024 seeking the following Orders;

1.	That the execution of the judgment delivered by the trial judge Hon. Mr. Justice Mohamed Mackie on 3rd April 2024 and the Orders sealed herein is stayed forthwith pending the determination of the Appeal.

2.	Alternatively, an Order for stay on any other immediate act or proceeding may be taken against the Plaintiff by the defendants pending the determination of the Appeal.

3.	That costs be in the cause.

2.	The said Summons is supported by the Affidavit sworn by Ms.Sangeeta Reshmi , the 2nd Plaintiff, and filed along with annexures marked as “SR-1” & “SR-2”, which are copy of my judgment dated 3rd April 2024 and the Notice of Appeal together with the intended Grounds of Appeal respectively.

3.	The 1st and the 2nd Defendants have filed their respective Affidavits in opposition and the Plaintiff has filed her Affidavit in reply only in relation to the Affidavit in opposition filed by the 2nd Defendant Vimlesh Kumar Sharma. 

4.	When the matter came up for hearing on 12th March 2025, counsel for the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant agreed to have the matter disposed by way of written submissions which they had already filed. The 2nd Defendant, who appeared in person from the inception, also agreed for same, but he only made a short oral submission at the hearing. Nominal Defendants neither made submissions nor actively took part at the hearing.

B.	BACKGROUND:

5.	 The 2nd named Plaintiff, as the sole executrix and trustee of the Estate of her deceased Father, Jag Lal, and in her personal capacity filed this action on 7th April 2015 by way of her writ of summons and the Statement of Claim (SOC) seeking the reliefs prayed for therein by naming the Housing Authority of Fiji (HA) as the 1st Defendant, the Registrar of Title as the 2nd nominal Defendant and one Vimlesh Kumar Sharma, as the 3rd nominal Defendant.

6.	The 1st Defendant by its Statement of Defence (SOD) filed on 8th May 2015 moved for the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action. The Plaintiff, subsequently, filed her second Amended Statement of Claim (ASOC) on 17th August 2018 by re-naming the said Vimlesh Kumar Sharma as the 2nd Defendant, Registrar of Title as the 3rd (nominal) Defendant and adding the Itaukei Land Trust Board as the 4th (nominal) Defendant.

7.	As per the said 2nd Amended Statement of claim (ASOC) the Plaintiffs prayed for:

(a)  Special damages in the sum of $560.00.
(b)  General damages for mis-statement; discrimination, fraud and Violation of the
      Provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji against the 1st and 2nd
     Defendant.
(c) A declaration that the plaintiff has equitable interest in Itaukei Lease No.30916 Lot
      8 SO 3526, Matavolivoli No. 2, Nadi.
(d) A Declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to own the portion of the property 
             occupied by her in the Itaukei Lease No 309161 Lot 8 SO 3526, Matavolivoli
            No. 2, Nadi.
(e) Injunction against the 2nd defendant and the nominal 4th Defendant restraining
     from evicting the plaintiff from the property being Itaukei Lease No
    309161 Lot 8 SO 3526, Matavolivoli No. 2, Nadi.

(f) An order that the Itaukei Lease No 309161 Lot 8 SO 3526, Matavolivoli No. 2, 
     Nadi given to the second Defendant is null & void.

(g)  An order that the 4th Nominal Defendant to provide for the necessary lease document to 	 the plaintiff.
(h)  Interest.
(i)  Cost.
(j)  Further or any other order the Court deems just.

8.	The injunctive relief sought as per paragraph (e) above was refused by Mohamed Ajmeer -J (as he was then). The 1st Defendant initially opted not to file amended statement of Defence, while the 2nd Defendant, Vimlesh Kumar Sharma, filed his Statement of Defence on 15th October 2018 moving for the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ action. However, the 1st Defendant subsequently filed its amended statement of defence on 19th March 2019 moving for the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action. The 3rd & 4th Nominal Defendants neither filed their Statement of Defence nor took part at the trial.

9.	At the end of the trial, this Court on 3rd April 2024 delivered its final judgment 		granting the following orders: (Vide my judgment dated 3rd April 2024).

a.	The Plaintiffs’ action fails.

b.	The Plaintiff’s writ of Summons filed on 7th April 2015 and the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 17th August 2018 are struck out.

c.	The Plaintiffs’ action against all the Defendants is hereby dismissed.

d.	No costs ordered and the parties shall bear their own costs.

10.	 The Plaintiff, having preferred an Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said
   judgment, is now before this Court by way of her ‘purported’ “Summons seeking the
   stay of execution of my judgment dated 3rd April 2024.

C.	CONSIDERATION:

11.	The reason why I call this Summons for Stay as ‘purported’ is the absence of any 	executable Order in my Judgment dated 3rd April 2024 granted in favor of the 1st and /or 	the 2nd Defendants. 

12.	As per the final judgment dated 3rd April 2024, this Court has found that the 1st Defendant 	Housing Authority of Fiji had well and truly conveyed the title to the land in dispute to the 	2nd Defendant Vimlesh Kumar Sharma by following the due processes , and the 2nd 	Defendant V.K. Sharma had duly become the registered proprietor /owner thereof. 

13.	The only relief sought by the 1st Defendant Housing Authority (HA) in its amended 	statement of Defence was the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action, which has been granted.  	When the HA had duly conveyed the title to the 2nd Defendant, it could not have moved 	for any relief other than the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action, which the HA correctly did. 	Thus, the HA has not obtained any executable relief (order/ judgment) in its favor for it 	to make an application for the execution.

14.	Unfortunately, the 2nd Defendant, Vimlesh Kumar Sharma, who appeared in person from    	the inception, also did not pray for any relief other than the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s 	action. Thus, the Court did not grant any executable relief (Order/ Judgment) in his 	favour, except for the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action. This was highlighted in my said 	judgment dated 3rd April 2024. Thus, he also cannot make any application for the 	execution as there are no executable reliefs granted in his favour. 

15.	This is why the 2nd Defendant is said to have filed a new action before the Master under 	Order 113 of the HCR for the eviction of the Plaintiff and others occupying the subject 	land. This was brought to the notice of this Court by the Counsel for the Plaintiff Mr. 	Maopa, on the date of hearing. In view of the above, when there is no likelihood of any 	application for execution being filed by the 1st or 2nd Defendants in terms of my judgment 	dated 3rd April 2024, the Plaintiff’s Application for stay becomes redundant.

D.	FINAL ORDERS:

a.	Plaintiffs “Summons for Stay of Execution” fails.

b.	Plaintiff’s said Summons filed on 14th May 2024 is hereby dismissed.

c.	No costs ordered and the parties shall bear their own costs. 

On this 15th Day of May 2025 at the Civil High Court of Lautoka. 

A.M. Mohamed Mackie
Judge
High Court (Civil)
Lautoka

SOLICITORS:
For the Plaintiff: Babu Singh & Associates- Barristers & Solicitors
For the 1st Defendant: Messrs. Vijay Naidu & Associates- Barristers & Solicitors.
For the 2nd Defendant: No representation (Self represented)
For the 3rd (Nominal) Defendant: Office of the Attorney General
For the 4th (Nominal) Defendant: In House Legal Department, I-Taukei Land Trust Board.