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

  Download original PDF

Singh v Singh [2016] FJHC 218; HBC075.2013 (1 April 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
WESTERN DIVISION
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC 075 of 2013
BETWEEN :

SHIU KUMAR SINGH of Martintar, Nadi.
PLAINTIFF

AND:

SESH PAL SINGH of Martintar, Nadi.
DEFENDANT

AND:

THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF FIJI ISLANDS a limited liability company having its registered office at Nadi Airport.
NOMINAL DEFENDANT

Mr. Mukesh Chand for the Plaintiff
Mr. Eroni Maopa for the Defendant
Mrs Arthi Bandhanna Swamy for the Nominal Defendant

Date of Hearing: - 12th November 2015
Date of Ruling : - 01st April 2016

Taxation of Costs

Before I proceed to the taxation of costs in this matter it appears prudent in the circumstances to provide a general outline of the background of the matter.

The action was filed on 03rd May 2013. The Plaintiff is a tenant of the Nominal Defendant since 22nd June 1984 over land known as Lot 26, on Deposited Plan 2157 part of Certificate of Title No: 11688 situated at Nadi.

The Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to occupy a portion of the said property which is less than one quarter acre for residential basis.

The Defendant after sometime refused to vacate the land. The Plaintiff has served Notices on the Defendant to vacate the land but he still occupies the land.

By Writ of Summons dated 03rd May 2013, the Plaintiff claims vacant possession of the land occupied by the Defendant, damages and costs.

On 30th September 2014, the Nominal Defendant filed an application by way of "Interlocutory Summons" pursuant to Order 18, rule 18 (1) (a) (b) and (d) of the High Court Rules, 1988, seeking that the action against it be struck out as it discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Nominal Defendant.

The Court upon reading the Interlocutory Summons to strike out the action and upon hearing the Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Nominal Defendant struck out the Statement of Claim and Writ of Summons against the Nominal Defendant with costs on a Solicitor indemnity basis since the pleading against the Nominal Defendant is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.

Order 59, rule 1 confers the Master the power to exercise jurisdiction over matters conferred on the Deputy Registrar. This rule states:-

A "taxing officer" is interpreted under Order 62 as the Registrar or any officer for the time being authorized by the Chief Justice to as a taxing officer. This means that the Master now becomes a taxing officer for the purpose of Order 62.

Powers of Taxing Officers

Order 62 rule 12 sub-rule 1 allowed the taxing officer to have power to tax:-
The costs of or arising out of any cause or matter in the High Court;

The costs directed by an award made on a reference to arbitration under any Act or pursuant to an arbitration agreement to be paid; and

Any other costs the taxation of which is directed by an order.

The taxation of the Nominal Defendant's Bill of Costs is completed. The scale of costs available to the taxation officer to be used as a guideline was from part (1) of Appendix (4) of the High Court Rules, 1988.

NOMINAL DEFENDANT'S BILL OF COSTS ON STANDARD BASIS

FOR TAXATION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF

Certificate

I certify that the Nominal Defendant's Bill of Costs was taxed pursuant to Order 62 of the High Court Rules.

The taxed costs were calculated using the fees prescribed under Part 1 of Appendix 4 of the High Court Rules.

Costs taxed and allowed at: $3580.00

Disbursements : $180.25

Court Appearances: $1,275.00

Total: $5,035.25 plus VAT

Jude Nanayakkara
Master of the High Court

At Lautoka
01st April 2016