On 7 th December 06, the Fiji Law Society suspended 10 of its members' Practicing Certificate pursuant to section 45(1)(d) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1997 , on the grounds relating to December 5 th 2006 events.

On 20 th June 07, the Acting Chief Justice delivered a ruling, declining to strike out the FHRC's claim as sought by the defendant, the Fiji Law Society, and transferred the case to Justice Coventry.

On 21 st June 07 Dr. S. Shameem informed Justice Coventry that the Commission needed to disclose that one of the Commission's principal complainants was related through marriage to his Lordship's Secretary. Although Dr Shameem did not request a recusal ( situation in which a judge or prosecutor is removed or steps down from a case due to conflict of interest e.g. a prior relationship with one of the parties ) , she disclosed the matter for the court's attention.

On the 20 th August 2007, Justice Coventry delivered his ruling on the submissions made by the FHRC on 29 th June 2007. The Fiji Law Society did not make submissions.

His Lordship stated that having considered the case objectively and relying on various case law on the issue of recusal, he did not find that there were grounds for his recusal. In his judgement, he stated that a reasonable and informed person would note an indirect link between his Lordship and the Commission's principal complainant but considered there was no real danger of bias or that his Lordship might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question in the matter.

His Lordship nevertheless said he would engage another personal assistant during the period of proceedings.

To top of page

Ruling on meaning of "Descendants"

A complaint came to the Commission when an application had been made to evict the Solomon Island descendants (defendants) from the Tamavua-i-wai land. The Tamavua-i-wai land was originally gifted in 1935 by the Tamavua Village to the Solomon Islanders, who were brought to Fiji during the "blackbirding" period.

In the first ruling Judge Coventry declared that the plaintiffs were estopped from removing those defendants who were the original grantees or the direct descendants of the original grantees and who currently live on the land.

The latest court ruling on this case was to define as clearly as possible the meaning of the word "descendants". This was important as Judge Coventry found in the original judgment that his ruling on the estoppel only extended to the original grantees and their direct descendants in the Solomon Island defense of estoppel over property they occupied in Tamavua-i-wai.

Judge Coventry said other persons residing on the Tamavua-i-wai land, did not fall within this description and therefore had no right to remain on the land. He envisaged that there would be a number of people who might or might not be described as direct descendants and said it was important that they knew if they were included in that term.

Judge Coventry's judgment said that the definition of "descendant" must be balanced with principle and expedience and suggested that "it might be wise" for those defendants who are direct descendants to form a trust to look after their interest. It should be carefully constructed and worded to ensure unreasonable disputes or misbehavior did not arise.

There was the real risk that if the definition was cast too wide then the land would quickly become overcrowded and those with dubious interests might seek to live or stay there.

Judge Coventry accordingly found that "descendants" meant:

1. The children, grandchildren, etc of the original grantees regardless of whether those children and grandchildren came from a legal marriage, custom marriage or any other relationship.
   
2. The spouses and long-term partners of those who qualified under 1 and 2 above.
   
3. The definition excluded any relations of those who come within the definition by virtue of being married to or the long-term partner of a direct descendant.

Judge Coventry recognized that in some cases there might be difficulty in deciding if someone is or is not a direct descendant, whether as a result of the rules or because of their factual circumstances. Accordingly the next step involves a listing of the family connections of those still on the land.

In a later ruling, Judge Coventry declined an application by the plaintiff to introduce fresh evidence and reopen the case.

To top of page