THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI 
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Judicial Review No.: HBJ 02 of 2010

IN THE MATTER of an Application by PROLINE BOATING COMPANY LIMITED for a Judicial Review under Order 53 of the High 	Court Rules 1988.

                      AND

IN THE MATTER of the Decision made on or about the 8th day of February, 2010 by THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS to re-enter the applicant’s Crown Lease Nos. 17769, 17770 and 17771.

BETWEEN	:	STATE	v.	1.	THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
						2.	THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES
						3.	DOMINION FINANCE LIMITED
						4.	PROLINE MARKETING LIMITED 
							(In Receivership)
RESPONDENTS

A N D	:	PROLINE BOATING COMPANY LIMITED
APPLICANT
 
Counsel		: 	Mr. Valenitabua S for the Applicant
				Ms. K. Naidu for the 1st and 2nd Respondents 

Dates of Hearing	: 	13th May, 2016	

Date of Decision 	:  	24th May, 2016

DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1.	The Applicant in this Judicial Review proceedings had filed the present application for 	contempt of court proceedings based on the alleged breaches of the orders made by the 	court. The said orders were made by Calanchini J (as his lordship then was) in this case 	on 2nd July, 2010 restraining all dealings in the lands in issue, until final determination of 	this matter as well as High Court Civil Action No 212 of 2009. The counsel for the 1st 	and 2nd Respondents objected to this application for the contempt on the basis that no 	contempt proceedings could be instituted against the ‘state’ in terms of Order 77 rule 11 	of the 	High Court Rules of 1988. The 1st and 2nd Respondents are Director of Lands and 	Registrar of Titles.

ANALYSIS
2.	The objections of the 1st and 2nd Respondents were based on the interpretation of Order 	77 rule 11 of the High Court Rules of 1988. It reads as follows
	‘11(1)	Nothing in Orders 45 to 52 shall apply in respect of any order 			against the state’ (emphasis added)

3.	It is admitted fact that the orders sought in the summons for contempt were made in pursuant to Order 52 of the High Court Rules of 1988, hence it should apply the above provision (i.e Order 77 rule 11).

4.	In the light of the said provision no contempt proceedings could be instituted in terms of the Order 52 of the High Court Rules of 1988 ‘ in respect of any order against the state’. So no order for contempt could be made against the ‘state’ hence no proceeding could be instituted against ‘state’ for contempt.

5.	In the consideration of applicability of Order 52 of the High Court Rules of 1988 to the Director of Lands (1st Respondent) and the Registrar of Titles (2nd Respondent) the interpretation of the phrase ‘order against the state’ is important.

6.	The Order 77 rule 1(2) defines the terms of the said provision and the word ‘order 	against the state ‘is defined in the following manner
	‘….means any order (including an order for costs) made in any civil 	proceedings by or against the State or in connection with any 	arbitration to which the State is a party, in 	favour of any person against 	the State or against a government department or against an officer of the 	State as such’(emphasis added)

7.	So the ‘order against the state ‘ was interpreted in the ‘exclusive’ manner as the words 	‘means’ was used to define, hence no other meaning could be attributed . So any order of 	the court made in any civil proceedings against the state will constitute an ‘order against 	the state’. So in order to apply the said definition interpretation of the phrase ‘civil 	proceedings’ is needed. This phrase is again defined in the Order 77 rule 1(2) of the High 	Court Rules of 1988.

8.	The words ‘civil proceedings’ is defined in the Order 77 rule 1 (2) in the following 	manner
	‘(2) In this Order-
	“civil proceedings by the state”, “civil proceedings against the State” and 	“civil proceedings by or against the state” have the same respective 	meanings as in Part II of the Crown (now State) Proceedings Act, and do 	not include any of the proceedings specified in section 18(3) of that 	Act’(emphasis added)

9.	So there is exclusion of specific  personnel  in the Section 18(3) of State Proceedings Act 	(Cap 24) and  in order to understand the above interpretation Section 18(3) of the State 	Proceedings Act (Cap 24) needs to be considered and it states as follows
	“18(3)  Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this 			section, the provisions of this Part shall not have effect with 			respect to any 	of the following proceedings, that is to say:-

(a) 	proceedings brought by the Attorney-General on the relation of some other person;
		(b) 	proceedings by or against the Public Trustee;
(c) 	proceedings under the law relating to charitable trusts by or against the Attorney-General;
		(d) 	proceedings by or against the Registrar of Titles.
				(emphasis added)
10.	So, it is manifest that no contempt proceedings could be instituted against the Director of 	the Lands who is the 1st Respondent. The Applicant at the outset of this hearing admitted 	this self evident fact. By the same token it is also indisputable that the proceedings 	against the Registrar of Title (2nd Respondent) could be proceeded as this position is 	expressly excluded in the Section 18(3) of the State Proceedings Act (Cap 24).

11. 	The counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted two decisions of the High Court 	and both these cases relate to the interpretation of the word ‘state’ in relation to Land 	Transport Authority and Western Drainage Board. In my mind the provisions contained 	in the Section 18(3) of State 	Proceedings Act (Cap 24) is unmistakable and there is no 	need to consider any case law. The said cases interpreted the word ‘state’ in relation to 	Land Transport Authority and Western Division Drainage Board (Widya Wati Vs Western 	Division Drainage Board et al (unreported) High Court Lautoka Civil Action HBC 332 	of 2001L decided on 18th August, 2009) and Ravind Millan Lal et al Vs Land Transport 	Authority and ANZ Bank (unreported) (decided on 31st July, 2009 High Court Lautoka 	Civil Action No HBC 213 of 1994). They are two statutory bodies.

12. 	There is express exclusion of Registrar of Titles from general exclusion of ‘state’ in the 	18(3) of State Proceedings Act (Cap 24) and, there is no need to search elsewhere to 	consider whether the said office is subject to the contempt proceedings under Order 52 	of the High Court Rules of 1988. In 	the cases that were submitted by the counsel for 	the 1st and 2nd Respondents,  the  respective statutory bodies had no express exclusion and 	court needed interpretation of them in the context of  relevant provisions of law, but in 	this case the definitions given in Order 77 rule 1(2) and the Section 18(3) of State 	Proceedings Act (Cap 24) are specific and the 2nd Respondent is expressly excluded from 	the blanket immunity offered to ‘state’ from contempt under Order 52 of the High Court 	Rules.
CONCLUSION
13.	No contempt proceedings could continue against the Director of Lands (1st Respondent) 	but the proceedings can be continued against the Registrar of Titles who is the 2nd 	Respondent. The preliminary objection against the 1st Respondent is sustained while the 	same is rejected against the 2nd Respondent in terms of the express provisions contained 	in the Section 18(3) of State Proceedings Act (Cap 24)

FINAL ORDERS 
a.	The contempt proceedings against the 1st Respondent is discontinued and accordingly struck off only against the 1st Respondent. 
b.	Cost of this application is cost in the cause.

Dated at Suva this 24th day of May, 2016

							………………………………..
							Justice Deepthi Amaratunga
							High Court, Suva