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

Pratap v Lal [2005] FJHC 629; HBJ0013.2004 (29 July 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
JUDICIAL REVIEW

ACTION NO. HBJ0013 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

RANA PRATAP and
RAM NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS

AND:

VIJAY KUMAR LAL
APPLICANT

Mr M S Sahu Khan for the Applicants
Mr S K Ram for the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 30 June 2005
Date of Judgment 29 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF FINNIGAN J

This is an application for an Order of Certiorari by way of Judicial Review, to quash a decision of the Central Agricultural Tribunal dated 13 April 2004 which granted an extension of a tenancy from 30 June 1989 to 30 June 2009. The ground for the application was that this decision was ultra vires the powers and jurisdiction of the Central Agricultural Tribunal. There is an associated similar application by the Respondents, HBJ0012 of 2004.

The foundation of the Applicants’ case is Section 22 [1] [j] of the Agricultural Landlord & Tenant Act Cap 270. The part they rely on is as follows:

“22 – [1] in respect of its agricultural district, a tribunal may, upon the application of a landlord or a tenant of an agricultural holding –

.........................

[j] decide any dispute between a landlord and tenant of agricultural land relating to such land and to the provisions of this Act.........Provided that the tribunal shall not adjudicate upon the length of the term contained in any contract of tenancy or extension thereof.............”

There are other provisions in the ALTA, particularly Sections 6 & 7, that fix the terms of contracts of tenancy.

The circumstances of this case are well known to the parties and were traversed at length in the Agricultural Tribunal, the Central Agricultural Tribunal and the hearing before me. I set some of them out in my accompanying judgment, HBJ0012 of 2004. The submissions were wide ranging.

The length of any tenancy was not an issue before the Agricultural Tribunal or the Central Agricultural Tribunal. The Agricultural Tribunal did not go into that. The issue clearly stated for it was whether the Applicants were the tenants of the Respondent. It decided they were not. That issue was taken to the Central Agricultural Tribunal and the higher tribunal reversed it. Its finding is one sentence:

“There is sufficient evidence to show that the Appellants are Respondent’s tenant and under S.13 of ALTA entitled to an extension of 20 years from 30^th June 1989 to 30^th June 2009”.

In my opinion the Central Agricultural Tribunal was going too far when it linked a termination date to its finding that the Applicants had a tenancy. It was not asked to do so.

I am not satisfied that Section 22 [1][j] prevented it from doing so. That provision takes away jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the length of the term contained in any contract of tenancy or extension thereof. This is not a contract case. As for the term, that issue was not litigated before. That is as far as I need to go, because pursuant to my judgment in HBJ0012 of 2004 the decision of the Central Agricultural Tribunal is quashed and I substitute therefor a decision that no tenancy was established.

I make no order for costs.

D.D. Finnigan
JUDGE

At Lautoka
29 July 2005