THE High Court in Suva has dismissed an application for vacant possession of a piece of land in Kalabu Village, Naitasiri, currently occupied by about 32 informal settlers.
The plaintiff, Isikeli Nakoivalu, stated that he is one of the elders of the Mataqali Nawavatu land owning unit of Kalabu Village, Naitasiri, and acknowledged that the mataqali is the traditional customary owner of the disputed land.
Court records show he was given a 10-year development lease over the property in 2023. He admitted that the defendants had been living on the land but claimed that none of them held a proper lease or title and were therefore unlawful occupiers.
However, a sworn written statement by Eparama Turaganivalu, who has served as the Turaga ni Mataqali of the Nawavatu land owning unit for over 20 years, stated that the people on the land are informal settlers who were permitted by his land owning unit to reside there, and have lived on the land for generations.
Mr Turaganivalu said his land owning unit does not want these families to be displaced, as they have been living on the land harmoniously and with permission.
After having heard the parties, Justice Anjala Wati noted that it was clear the occupants had been living on the land for a long time before the plaintiff’s development lease.
“It also needs investigation as to how many people from the land owning unit had actually given consent for a development lease to be issued to the plaintiff and what the arrangements are to house over hundreds of people who are now living on the land,” ruled Justice Wati on September 26.
“The plaintiff does not think that this is an issue for the court to consider. I do not endorse that view.
“There are hundreds of people on this property.
“It is not easy to displace families with children who need shelter and protection.”
She further ruled that the issue of consent must be properly examined, and allegations of collusion and fraud between the plaintiff and the lessor raised by the land owning unit warrant further investigation.
The plaintiff, as per the ruling, also chose the wrong procedure to bring the case to court.
“I do not find that Order 113 Rule 1 is the proper proceedings to evict the occupiers of the land in question and as such, I dismiss the application.
“It was already known to him that the occupiers of the land had the permission of the land owning unit to occupy the land.
“That gave a clear indication that Order 113 procedure was not suitable from the beginning.”
Justice Wati has ordered the plaintiff to pay $5000 to the defendants.
