In the High Court of Fiji
At Suva
Civil Jurisdiction

Civil Action No. HBC 156 of 2012

Shiu Kamal Singh
Plaintiff
v
Suva City Council
First defendant

Land Transport Authority
Second defendant
                                  
                                    Counsel:              Mr  K. Maisamo for the plaintiff
    Ms  A. Erasito for the first defendant 
    Mr S. Nandan for the second defendant 
                                   Date of hearing:     21st October,2019          
                                   Date of Judgment:  22nd May,2020  

Judgment
1.	The plaintiff states that he tendered for motor vehicle DC 653 advertised for sale by the first defendant. He was awarded the tender. The first defendant has not paid the outstanding arrears of the wheel tax and other levies, which were not disclosed during the tender process. He was assured verbally by the first defendant that the second defendant will transfer the vehicle outright to him. He bought the vehicle on the understanding that it is free of encumbrances. The second defendant acted “negligently” in not transferring the vehicle due to outstanding arrears of wheel tax and other levies owed by the first defendant. The plaintiff states that he operates a truck business and claims that he has sustained loss of business in a sum of $ 227,868.78, as the vehicle was not transferred to him. 
2.	The first defendant, in its statement of defence states that it did not owe any outstanding arrears. The vehicle was left abandoned on the streets, impounded and tendered for sale pursuant to its powers under the Local Government Act and the Land Transport Act.

3.	The second defendant, in its statement of defence states that it could not transfer the vehicle as it its registration certificate and wheel tax certificate expired. 

The determination
4.	The preliminary issues for determination, as recorded at the PTC, are whether there was any obligation on the first defendant to check if the wheel tax and other levies were cleared prior to the tender and whether the second defendant was obligated to transfer the vehicle, despite the expired registration and wheel tax registration certificates.

5.	The plaintiff, (PW1) produced the advertisement as published in the Fiji Sun ,the prescribed tender form for the purchase of derelict vehicles, acceptance of his offer by the first defendant . He paid the required sum to the first defendant, which gave him a transfer form. He towed the vehicle to his garage, repaired it and ……… to the second defendant to transfer. The second defendant told him that there are arrears of wheel tax to be paid of $ 15,391.52.

6.	In cross examination, Ms Erasito, counsel for the first defendant  put it to him that he informed the first defendant by letter of 10th December,2008, that he purchased the vehicle for spare parts. His attention was drawn to the transfer form, which stated that all arrears must be paid to the second defendant.  The transfer form was given when he paid the money. There was no arrangement between him and the first defendant to pay the arrears.

7.	In answer to  Mr Nandan, counsel for the second defendant, the plaintiff agreed that the arrears had to be paid before the new registration sticker was issued. The plaintiff said that the first defendant was the owner of the vehicle. 

8.	DW1, (Krishna, Administrative Secretary, First defendant) explained the procedures for impounding vehicles. The plaintiff was the successful bidder. There was no arrangement with the plaintiff to pay the arrears. In cross examination, he agreed that if there is no claim for the vehicle consequent to the advertisement, the first defendant becomes the owner of the vehicle.

9.	The “PRESCRIBED TENDER FORM FOR THE PURCHASE OF DERELICT FORMS..” provides that the vehicle could be inspected. 

10.	The plaintiff by letter of 10th December,2008, informed the first defendant that he requires the vehicle for spare parts.

11.	The vehicle was a derelict vehicle towed away from the streets of Suva, as provided in the advertisement. 

12.	The plaintiff should have inspected the vehicle and ascertained if the wheel tax and registration certificate were paid. 

13.	In my judgment, there was no obligation on the first defendant to ascertain if wheel tax or other levies have been cleared. I do not find that there was an arrangement between the plaintiff and first defendant for payment of the arrears.

14.	The second defendant was not obliged to transfer the vehicle with the expired registration and wheel tax registration certificates. There is no negligence on the part of the second defendant. 

15.	In my judgment, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages. 

16.	Orders
(a)	The plaintiff’s claim is declined.
(b)	The plaintiff shall pay the first defendant a sum of $ 1000 and the second defendant a sum of $ 1000, as costs summarily assessed.

                                                         A.L.B. Brito Mutunayagam
JUDGE
22nd May,2020