Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Prasad v Williams [2004] FJHC 525; HBC0083D.2002B (27 July 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBC0083D OF 2002B

BETWEEN:

SOMAI PRASAD s/o Bal Deo,
GAYA PRASAD s/o Ram, Dayal,
BABU RAM s/o Bal Deo,
RAGHUNATH s/o Badri Prasad,
NILESH KUMAR s/o Dudh Nath
all of Nasarowaqa, Bua,
Cultivator.
PLAINTIFFS

AND:

ALFRED JOHN WILLIAMS
as executor in the estate of HENRY DAVID WILLIAMS deceased,
ILISONI SANADALI
as executor in the estate of ALFRED JOHN WILLIAMS and
THOMAS BULL
as executor in the estate of SELINA BULL
all of Nasarowaqa, Bua, Landlords.
DEFENDANTS

Counsel for the Plaintiffs: A. Sen: Maqbool & Co.
Counsel for the Defendants: V. Paras Ram : )

Ms Prasad : ) Gibson & Co.

Date of Decision: 27 July, 2004
Time of Decision: 9.30 a.m.

DECISION

This is the Defendants’ application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ action under Order 18 Rule 18 (1) (d) of the High Court Rules, namely that the action is an abuse of the process of the Court.

The five (5) Plaintiffs were tenant farmers on the Defendants’ land namely Crown Grants Nos. 1237 and 1238 on at most a yearly basis. There is no dispute that as such, the tenants had been paying their annual rents on a regular basis until the Defendants solicitors notice terminating their tenancy with effect from 31 December, 1999.

Plaintiffs’ Case

The Plaintiffs case is based on the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act (ALTA) (Cap 270) and specifically sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. In summary, section 4 presumes a tenancy exists if there is a continuing occupation of more than 3 years; section 5 deals with the right of a tenant to apply to the Tribunal for a declaration of tenancy; and section 6 on the statutory term to be given to the tenancy. In respect of their claim, the Plaintiffs are claiming that they have been in continuing occupancy of their holdings for several years and under the Act they are entitled to continue their tenancy and to be issued with a proper contract of tenancy.

In their Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs seek:

'(a) Possession of their respective agricultural holdings occupied and or cultivated by the Plaintiffs in accordance with sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Agricultural Landlords and Tenants Act.

(b) An injunction restraining the first Defendant either through his servants or agents in interfering with the Plaintiffs’ occupation and cultivation of their respective holdings.

(c) Alternatively, a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled for a thirty {sic: years} tenancy of their respective holdings pursuant to section 6 of the Agricultural Landlords and Tenants Act Cap 270.'

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Out

In its defence, the Defendants deny the existence of any right to tenancy by the Plaintiffs. In the alternative and which has now given rise to Defendants’ application to strike out the claim, the Defendants’ submit that the proper forum to address the Plaintiffs’ claims is in the Agricultural Tribunal established under the provisions of section 16. The Tribunal, according to Counsel, is empowered to deal with all matters relating to agricultural land, including specifically the declaration of a tenancy. Thereafter, any appeals go to the Central Agricultural Tribunal. The only time any matter may go before the High Court, according to the Defendants, is by case stated.

The Plaintiffs argue, in support of their case, that the High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings under any law. Counsel referred the Court to section 119 of the Constitution that sets out the jurisdiction of the High Court. In particular, sub-sections (1) and (2) state:

'(1) The High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil or criminal proceedings under any law and such other original jurisdiction as is conferred on it under this Constitution.

(2) The High Court has original jurisdiction in any matter arising under this Constitution or involving its interpretation.'

These provisions, according to the Plaintiffs, grant the High Court the powers to hear matters over and above the jurisdiction accorded to the Agricultural Tribunal. Counsel referred as authority for this proposition the case of Chattar Ban v. Banraji Labasa CA 0080.1988.

There is also the issue of the injunction application by the Plaintiffs to restrain the first Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiffs’ continuing occupation and enjoyment of the land. It is because injunctive reliefs are not available to the Plaintiffs at the Tribunal, that they have begun these proceedings in the High Court. Counsel argued that under the circumstances, the High Court cannot close the door on the Plaintiffs.

Court’s Consideration

The ALTA is 'An Act to provide for the relations between landlords and tenants of agricultural holdings and for matters connected thereto.' Section 3 states that the 'Act shall apply to all agricultural land in Fiji,' except in situations set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 3 (1).

Section 16 of the Act establishes Agricultural Tribunals exercising the powers of a Magistrate’s Court, and whose powers and duties are set out under Part IV of the Act and in particular section 22. Of immediate relevance to this proceeding, are the provisions at S. 22 (1) (g) and (j) which state:

'22 (1) In respect of its agricultural district, a tribunal may, upon the application of a landlord or a tenant of an agricultural holding –

(a) . . .
(b) . . .
(c) . . .
(d) . . .
(e) . . .
(f) . . .
(g) grant relief against eviction, re-entry or forfeiture in respect of any holding whether created or in existence before or after the commencement of this Act;

(h) . . .
(i) . . .

(j) decide any dispute between a landlord and tenant of agricultural land relating to such land and the provisions of this Act, and to exercise any power or duty, including the power to specify the period of time a decisions shall be in force, necessary for the implementation of any power, duty or functions conferred by or imposed under the provisions of this sub-section or of this Act:

Provided that the Tribunal shall not adjudicate upon the length of the term contained in a contract of tenancy or extension thereof;'

It is patently obvious that in the scheme of things as envisaged by the lawmakers, that all Fiji’s agricultural land and specifically the relationship between the landlord and tenant were to be administered, under ALTA, excepting those under S.3 (1) (a) (b) and (c). A tribunal is created to deal with any dispute between the parties, with the right of appeal for the aggrieved to the Central Agricultural Tribunal.

In this instance, the Court holds the view that the Plaintiffs proper recourse lies before the Tribunal and not this Court. The reliefs they seek are within the competence of that forum. First in respect of the declaration of a tenancy, the Tribunal has the powers to do so under sections 5 and 6 of the Act. Secondly, in the relief against eviction, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and powers are contained in section 22 (1) as set out above. The argument submitted by the Plaintiff of injunction not being available before the Tribunal, and which necessitated the bringing of this case to the High Court is, in my view, misconceived. The very fact that a dispute is placed before the Tribunal should result in the status quo being maintained by the parties. It would be extremely foolhardy for a landlord, the Defendants in this case, to proceed with the eviction of the Plaintiffs, while the matter is before the Tribunal. Contempt proceedings would seem to this Court, appropriate in case the Tribunal proceedings are ignored.

The unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court does not, in the Court’s view, open the door to every litigant that otherwise have in place proper forum to seek relief from, to come to in the first instance. The process of the Court available to the Plaintiffs under ALTA must first be used before they can seek relief elsewhere. In my view, the Plaintiff’s attempt in coming to this Court to seek reliefs that are obtainable under ALTA, from the Tribunal, amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.

In the circumstances, the Plaintiffs’ action is struck out.

I award $150.00 to the Defendants.

F. Jitoko
JUDGE

At Labasa
27 July 2004