| Fiji Islands - Ocean Shores Estates Ltd v Karavaki - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL ACTION NO.468 OF 1996
BETWEEN:
OCEAN SHORES ESTATES LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND:
KALIVATI KARAVAKI, ISAKE RAKURO,
RATU MOSESE RATUMAITAVUKI
Defendants
Mr. T. Fa for the Plaintiff
Mr. Savu for the Defendants
JUDGMENT
This is the Plaintiff's Originating Summons for an Order that it do recover possession of the property comprised in C.T. No.1873 Lot
2 on DP 4515 situate at 29 Wairua Road, Tamavua, Suva.
On 6 March 1997 I gave a decision herein in which I decided that in the circumstances of this case an open court hearing is required
in this action. I said that the provisions of Or.28 r.9 of the High Court Rules (i.e. continuation of proceedings as if cause or
matter begun by writ) could be invoked in this situation.
The hearing in open court took place today.
During the hearing Mr. Fa withdrew against the first defendant as there was already an order of this Court for vacant possession against
him made on 12 June, 1987. The fact that there was this Order was not disclosed to Court before when I heard the section 169 application
as it appears the Plaintiff was not fully aware of that.
The case proceeded against the second and third defendants. The Plaintiff's witness Mr.Vijay Prakash Maharaj, a Director of the Plaintiff
Company, testified that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the said property and that a notice to quit was served on the
defendants but they failed to vacate. He said that they have no right to possession of the portion of the said land which they occupy.
The defendants were not present at the hearing. Hence no evidence was adduced on their behalf.
Mr. Savu addressing the Court said that the defendants are not present although they were informed of the hearing date. Therefore
he says he cannot show any cause as required under s172 of the Land Transfer Act Cap 131. He said that the only thing he could ask for is to give the two defendants time to vacate.
On the above facts, and Mr. Savu for the defendants conceding that no cause can be shown as to why the defendants should refuse to
give possession, the order sought by the Plaintiff has to be made .
In the circumstances upon hearing counsel for the Plaintiff and upon hearing counsel for the defendants (D2 & D3) and upon considering
the evidence of Mr. Maharaj, I find that, as required under s172 of the Act, the two defendants have not shown cause as to why they
refuse to give possession of the land in question.
I therefore make an Order for immediate vacant possession of the said land but by consent there be no execution until 31 December
1998 with each party to bear his own costs.
D Pathik
JUDGE
At Suva
11 August 1998
Hba0468j.96s
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/1998/120.html
