Rural investment Ltd v Lautoka City Council [1979] FJSC 10; Civil Action No. 150 OF 1979 (6 July 1979)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI (WESTERN DIVISION)

AT LAUTOKA

Civil Jurisdiction
Action No. 150 of 1979

BETWEEN:

RURAL INVESTMENTS LTD.
Plaintiff

AND:

LAUTOKA CITY COUNCIL
Defendant

Mr. N. Mohammed for B.C Patel, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mr. S. Prasad, Counsel for the Defendant

RULING

The plaintiff company issued a writ filed on 13/6/79 seeking damages, certain declarations, and an injunction in connection with certain renovations and repairs to buildings on Lot 18 section 5 Vitogo Parade, Lautoka.

From subsequent affidavits, it would appear that the Lot number is in fact Lot 18 section 2. Appearance was entered by the defendant on 20/6/79, but to date no statement of claim has been filed or served.

The defendant filed an application and an affidavit in support thereof on 25/6/79 seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the plaintiff from proceeding with repairs and renovations in contravention of a stop work order served on the plaintiff prior to these proceedings. It must be said here that the plaintiff had properly submitted plans for the proposed repairs and renovations, and when no objections had been raised within 30 days had proceeded with them as it was entitled to do under the proviso to regulation 12(2) of the Towns (Building) Regulations "subject to the building therein referred to being in conformity with the provisions of these Regulations." There could well be some difficulty in interpreting the latter part in quotes since it could be argued that it is the original building that has to conform with the Regulations rather than the repairs and alterations. However the defendant served a stop work order on the plaintiff, which was the reason for the plaintiff issuing the writ in the first place and now, seeks an injunction to stop the plaintiff continuing with the work pending the outcome of these proceedings.

The plaintiff filed an affidavit in reply in which it is stated that apart from a partition and certain painting work, the work indicated in the plans is not being proceeded with. And counsel for the plaintiff has undertaken that further work will not be undertaken until these proceedings are concluded.

In any case it seems to me that the defendant has ample remedies under the Regulations themselves in respect of any unauthorised repairs or renovations. Regulation 133 is a case in point.

That I think disposes of the first application by the defendant for an injunction.

However in the plaintiff's affidavit it was stated that the premises were to-be occupied from 1st July.

The defendant then filed another application for an interim injunction restraining the plaintiff or any tenants from-using or occupying the building until after trial of the action. The basis for the injunction is that no completion certificate has been issued by the Council in respect of the repairs and renovations in accordance with regulation 134 of the Regulations. But of course-regulation 134 applies only in respect of alterations or repairs carried out under a permit issued by the Council. In this case the Council never issued a permit, and even if a permit were to be presumed in accordance with the proviso to Regulation 12(2) in the absence of any communication from the Council, the regulations give no indication of what the position is to be where the planned repairs and renovations are not proceeded with. There is no evidence before the court that the building is or was unfit for occupation without repairs or renovations.

With regard to the partition, if the Council is of the opinion that this has been erected in contravention of the Regulations it has ample powers under regulation 133 to have it removed.

Accordingly I dismiss both applications by the defendant for interlocutory injunctions with costs.

(Sgd.) G.O.L. Dyke
JUDGE

LAUTOKA,
6th July, 1979.

Messrs Stuart, Reddy & Co., for the Plaintiff
Messrs S. Prasad & Co., for the Defendant