A SQUATTER and others who claimed to have rights to a property in Navua after unlawfully occupying it for 20 years have been ordered to vacate within 21 days.
This civil action involves an application by the plaintiff, Instiwel Holdings Pte Ltd (IHPL), for vacant possession of property against Waisake Kereni and other occupants who are occupying the property as squatters.
IHPL submitted in court that it is the registered proprietor of the property at Lot 41, Deuba, 336 Pacific Harbour Scheme Development, having acquired it through a tender process.
It alleges that Mr Kereni and others occupied the property when the previous owner was not around.
Company officials had furnished the defendants with a notice to vacate but they failed to abide by the notice and continued to be in wrongful and unlawful occupation.
The Registrar of Tiles had declined Mr Kereni’s application for vesting order on information provided by Estate Management Services Ltd (EMSL).
In her ruling Justice Anjala Wati said if Mr Kereni was not satisfied with the registrar’s decision, then he should have challenged section 164 of the Land Transfer Act 1971.
Mr Kereni’s lawyer explained that his client did not know how to challenge the decision.
“That is not good enough. If he knew of his right to apply for vesting order, he should also be aware of his right of appeal,” stated Justice Wati on April 11.
“All those rights are provided for under the same law, which is, the LTA 1971. There was nothing from him enquiring about his legal rights. It is now four years since the application was declined and the defendant has not vindicated his rights.
“He chooses to assert his right in these proceedings which is not the correct form to do so.”
Mr Kereni and other occupants had claimed EMSL had made fraudulent claims against the previous owner of the property, Mei Li Lin, and that the sale of the property to the plaintiff at a price much lower than the market value was not appropriate.
“I do not find that the defendant has any proprietary interest in the subject property to challenge the sale to the plaintiff,” Justice Wati ruled.
“The defendant does not acquire a right to possession of the property by challenging that the plaintiff is not a bona-fide purchaser. I do not find that the defendant has established a right to possession of the property and as such he should vacate the same.
“The defendant’s claim of his right is not founded on any factual or legal basis and was not likely to succeed yet he chose to delay the proceedings and put the plaintiff through expense.”
Justice Wati ordered Mr Kereni and other occupants to vacate the property pay the plaintiff $3500 within 21 days.
