Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Vanuatu |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)
Civil Case No. 82 of 2009
BETWEEN:
FREDERICK APED
Claimant
AND:
SHEFA PROVINCIAL COUNCIL
Defendant
Coram: Justice D. Fatiaki
Counsel: Mr. J. Kilu for the Claimant
Mr. J. Tari for the Defendant
Mr. A. F. Obed for the State (at the Court's invitation)
Date of Decision: 26th August 2010
JUDGMENT
Chronology
"(i) That the Claimant is the registered proprietor of the lease of the land;
(ii) That it occupies part of the land;
(iii) That it has paid rent to the end of 2006 payment being made on 27 August 2008;
(iv) That it has continued to occupy the land since the end of 2006 and paid only VT200,000 although they have really paid VT300,000 for rent for the whole period making the payment prior to the end of January 2009;
(v) That the previous monthly tenancy at the rent of VT100,000 per month was agreed to be replaced by a new Agreement made on 27 August 2009;
(vi) That the new Agreement provided for the parties to negotiate to resolve outstanding land rent since the end of 2006 and negotiate a new tenancy agreement;
(vii) That no new tenancy agreement was negotiated;
(viii) That an eviction notice was served on 14 May 2009;
(ix) That the Defendant has not left the land."
The Court also received from defence counsel at the hearing of the application, copies of the following letters:-
Discussion
A cursory examination of the above letters reveals the sudden new found urgency by the Defendant Council and the importance of the present proceedings. The land in question presently houses the Defendant Council's Sub-District offices as well as what might be described as the business and government centre for Epi Island ('the centre'). Amongst its other occupants are the National Bank of Vanuatu, the Police Station, Market House, Court Building, Telecommunication building, Rural Water Supply offices and sporting facilities. Closure of such a centre will seriously and adversely disrupt the delivery of essential commercial and government services to the people of Epi Island and should be avoided if at all possible.
The letters also reveals that steps have only been taken since March 2010 for the Government to compulsorily acquire the land occupied by the centre under the Land Acquisition Act [CAP. 215]. The relevant acquisition notices have been issued and covers all of the land comprised within the Claimant's registered lease No. 10/1113/001. This is confirmed in a sworn statement deposed by a valuation officer of the Lands Department.
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the compulsory acquisition of the Claimant's leasehold is the surest and most appropriate process for resolving any future disputes over the land and for ensuring the continued survival of the centre and the uninterrupted delivery of essential services to the residents of Epi Island.
Having said that however I am equally satisfied that the Defendant Council has not been diligent or fair in its dealings with the Claimant in finalizing and agreeing a monthly rental for the area it occupies within the Claimant's leasehold since 2006 and, for which, it has itself been receiving rental from the tenants of its buildings erected on the Claimant's leasehold.
In this regard the Claimant's counsel sought by letter dated 21 May 2010 a monthly payment of VT250,000 for outstanding rent payments. This was agreed to and paid out by the Defendant Council on 26 May 2010. The amount was then unilaterally reduced to VT100,000 per month in a Council resolution made on 30 June 2010.
Barely a week after that unilateral reduction, the Defendant Council in an article published in a local daily, publicly announced its purchase of three (3) new Toyota Hilux Double Cabin vehicles at a total cost of VT8 million. Not surprisingly, this public display of seemingly profligate spending on the part of the Defendant council prompted the Claimant to immediately renew his application for the eviction order.
After considering the pleadings, all the sworn statements and the submissions of counsel for the Claimant and defence counsel I am reluctantly driven to the firm conclusion that the Defendant Council has not raised an arguable defence to the Claimant's claim for an eviction order, and accordingly, an eviction order will issue forthwith against the Defendant Council. I am concerned however to limit the disruption that this order will inevitably have on the Defendant Council's operations as much as possible.
I am also satisfied that an interim order for mesne profits adopting the figure of VT100,000 per month and back-dated to 2 February 2007, must be made in favour of the Claimant. Such sum to bear interest at 5% per annum back-dated to 2 February 2007 and is to be paid by monthly installments of VT250,000 until fully repaid.
In conclusion, the orders of the Court are:-
(1) Eviction order to issue requiring the Defendant Council to vacate the Claimant's leasehold title No. 10/1113/001 at Rovo Bay on Epi Island. Execution is stayed however for 4 months to enable the compulsory acquisition of the Claimant's leasehold to be finalized or an agreement concluded by the parties on the monthly rental to be paid for the Defendant's continued occupation of the Claimant's leasehold pursuant to Clause 4.2 of 'the 2008 Agreement', whichever occurs first;
(2) Mesne profits (calculated using a monthly rental of VT100,000);
Feb. 2007 – Jan. 2008: 1,2m
Feb. 2008 – Jan. 2009: 1,2m
Feb. 2009 – Jan. 2010: 1,2m
Feb. 2010 – Aug. 2010: 0,7m
--------
VT4,3 million
(3) Interest (@ 5% per annum back-dated to Feb. 2007)
Feb. 2007 – Jan. 2008: 60,000
Feb. 2008 – Jan. 2009: 60,000
Feb. 2009 – Jan. 2010: 60,000
Feb. 2010 – Aug. 2010: 35,000
-----------
VT215,000
Judgment is accordingly entered in favour of the Claimant in the sum of VT4,515,000 payable at the rate of VT250,000 per month until fully paid with the first payment due on 27 September 2010;
(4) Costs which are summarily assessed at VT200,000.
For the sake of completeness I decline the Defendant's application to amend its counterclaim and I also direct that copies of this judgment be served on the State Law Office as well as the Director of Lands.
DATED at Port Vila, this 26th day of August, 2010.
BY THE COURT
D. V. FATIAKI
Judge.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2010/129.html