Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Fiji Land Transport Appeals Tribunal

  Download original PDF

Latchan Holdings Ltd v Land Transport Authority [2018] FJLTAT 1; Appeal 54.2014 (9 February 2018)

Land Transport Appeals Tribunal
Sitting at Nausori & Suva.

Appeal # 54 of 2014 &
56 of 2014.

--------------------------------------------------------------
54 of 2014

Between: Latchan Holdings Limited
Central Transport Company Limited

Appellants

And: Land Transport Authority
Respondent

Nadera Transport Limited
Interested Party
--------------------------------------------------------------

56 of 2014

Between: Island Buses Limited
Appellant

And: Land Transport Authority
Respondent

Nadera Transport Limited

Interested Party

--------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 24^th November 2017 (at Nausori)

--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearances and Representations

For Central Transport : Mr Viren Kapadia.
For Island Buses & Latchan’s : Mr Faizal Haniff.
For LTA : Ms Venina Naisilasila.
For Interested Party (Nadera) : Mr Ramesh Prakash.

Judgment

Introduction

The two matters are related and deal with similar issues. The parties agreed to a consolidated hearing. The Tribunal has noted that the Secretary to the Tribunal has served all the parties.

On 14^th August 2014, the LTA Board resolved to approve an application by Nadera Transport Limited for additional trips from Monday to Sunday departing Narere Road Stage 1, Waidranu Street Roundabout to Suva Bus Stand (via Waimanu Road, Marks Street, Thompson Street, Victoria Parade, Stinson Parade, May Street, Rodwell Road). The LTA granted the application, however it was subject to the condition that Nadera Transport Limited did not pick passengers along Waimanu Road and only allowed dropping off passengers along Waimanu Road.

The appellants being aggrieved with the LA decision have appealed the decision.

The Grounds of Appeal

In Action Number 54 of 2014 the grounds of appeal are as follows:

“ 1. The Authority erred in law and in fact in proceeding to hear the application of Nadera for amendment of RRL 12/6/54 as an unopposed application and granting the application to Nadera without considering the written objections of the Appellants which were provided to the Authority as follows: