Native Land Trust Board v Narawa [2002] FJSC 6; CBV0007E.2002 (29 August 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. CBV 0007 OF 2002

ON THE APPEAL FROM THE FIJI COURT OF APPEAL IN THE CIVIL APPEAL

NO. ABU0012 OF 1992S.

BETWEEN:

NATIVE LAND TRUST BOARD
APPELLANT

AND:

MESULAME NARAWA

RAITUBE MATANABUA
RESPONDENTS

In Chambers: Hon. Sir Rodney Gallen, Sitting as a Judge of the Supreme Court

Hearing: Thursday, 29th August 2002, Suva

Counsel: Mr T. Bukarau with Mr. G. Leung for the Appellant
Mr I Fa for the Respondents

Date of Decision: Thursday, 29th August 2002

DECISION

On the 31st of May 2002 the Court of Appeal gave Judgment in the case of Narawa and Matanabua against the Native Land Trust Board and Others. The Native Land Trust Board now wishes to appeal against that decision but for reasons which are set out in the affidavit filed in support of the present application it did not take the necessary steps within the time contemplated by the rules. There is some disagreement between Counsel as to what the appropriate times were in any event. But there can be no doubt that which ever rules are applied the time limited has now expired.

The rules of the Supreme Court incorporate where appropriate and mutatis mutandis the rules of the High Court. Those rules include a power to extend time in appropriate cases. Sitting as a Judge of the Supreme Court I arrived at the view this was an appropriate case to extend time. Mr Fa for the intended respondent in opposing that leave be granted drew attention to a number of disadvantages to the respondent, not the least of which was a further period of delay in resolving a dispute which has now been outstanding for a period of years. Mr Fa also made it plain in his submissions that he contended there was in any event no right to appeal in this case. He submitted on the basis of authority that the decision of the Court of Appeal was not a final appeal in a sense which would allow an appeal to the Supreme Court. He also contended the grounds on which the intended appellant ruled did not meet the criteria for granting leave.

The questions raised by him seem to me to be of some substance which ought to be explored in greater depth than was possible in a Chambers hearing. Immediately before the expiration of the present sittings of the Court of Appeal.

I accordingly came to the conclusion that it is appropriate to grant leave extending time in this case and the substantive questions as to whether or not an appeal lies at all can appropriately be determined when the application is heard. Leave will therefore be granted extending the time within which the applicant may file a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of the Court of Appeal in these proceedings The time is extended for a period of 14 days from the 29th of August 2002 and the necessary documents must be filed within that period. The respondents represented by Mr Fa are entitled to costs on this application which I fix at $500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

Hon. Sir Rodney Gallen
SITTING AS A JUDGE OF SUPREME COURT

Solicitors:
Legal Officer, Native Land Trust Board, Suva for the Appellant
Messrs. Fa and Company, Suva for the Respondents