1.

Serupepeli Dakai and Others v NLDC, NLTB and NLC [1983] 29 FLR 92
In this legal case, the appellants challenged the actions of the Native Land Trust Board in
granting a lease to the Native Land Development Corporation Limited over certain land. The
appellants claimed individual ownership of the land, either by virtue of their membership in a
Mataqali or based on an alleged letter from the Commissioner of Lands in 1905. However, the
court rejected these claims and affirmed the decision of the lower court.
The court held that the nature of ownership of native land in Fiji is collective, vested in Mataqali,
and administered by the Native Land Trust Board. The land cannot be owned in fee simple by
individuals but is held collectively for the use and occupation of the Mataqali and their
descendants. The court also emphasized the conclusive nature of the Registers of Native Land
issued by the Native Lands Commission.
Regarding the grounds of appeal:
1. The court rejected the argument that the appellants had status to bring the action based on
individual ownership claims, as the land was collectively owned by the Mataqali.
2. The court found that the Native Land Development Corporation Limited was not ultra vires
the powers of the Native Land Trust Board, as it was a legally incorporated entity.
3. The court dismissed the claim that individual beneficiaries were entitled to have a say in the
terms of the trust, reaffirming that the Board alone has the power to control native land.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower court, and ordered
costs to be paid to the respondents.
2. Naimisio Dikau & Others v NLTB [1986] FLR 179
In this case, the plaintiffs, representing members of the mataqali Nabati, brought an action
against the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) and a company licensed by the NLTB to cut
timber on land owned by the mataqali. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the license was
unlawful, an injunction against the defendants from entering or cutting timber on the land, and
damages and costs.
The defendants objected to the plaintiffs' standing to bring the action, arguing that the plaintiffs,
as individual members of the mataqali, lacked the capacity to sue. The court agreed with the
defendants, citing previous rulings that individual members of a mataqali cannot sue in their
personal capacity or obtain injunctions regarding land owned by the mataqali.
The court explained that under Fijian law, land is owned by mataqalis or other proprietary
units, not by individual members. While members may have rights to use and occupy the land
based on their membership in the mataqali, these rights do not confer individual ownership or
standing to sue. The court emphasized the importance of recognizing the communal ownership
structure of mataqalis and the need to protect the interests of all members, present and future.
Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs could seek relief by way of a
declaration, as their rights were too indirect and insubstantial to justify such proceedings. It
stated that the plaintiffs' claims lacked a legal basis and could potentially lead to an influx of
litigation, disrupting the orderly control of Fijian land by the NLTB.
Ultimately, the court upheld the defendants' objection and dismissed the action. It also ruled
that the defendants were entitled to costs, though not the costs of a full trial.
Overall, the judgment highlights the legal principles governing land ownership in Fiji,
particularly regarding mataqalis, and underscores the limitations on individual members' rights
to sue in matters concerning mataqali land.
 3. Nagata v Native Lands Commission, NLTB and Ratu Meli Naevo (1991) 37 FLR 97
The High Court's decision in this case affirms the rights of the Namulomulo villagers as owners-
in-common of the land, granting them full rights of ownership subject only to the reversionary
right held by the Mataqali Nalagi. Here's a breakdown of the key points and decisions made by
the court:
Background of the Case: The dispute concerns a large area of native land known as
"Namulomulo Town Lands" in Ba, Fiji. The Tui Nawaka, representing the Mataqali Nalagi,
claimed that the present occupiers (Namulomulo villagers) did not have the right to retain profits
derived from the land.
Claims and Declarations Sought by the Plaintiff: The Plaintiff sought declarations stating that
the Namulomulo villagers are the rightful owners-in-common of the land and are entitled to
receive all rents derived from it. They also sought orders to compel the Native Lands
Commission and Native Land Trust Board to recognize their ownership and pay them rent
exclusively.
Interpretation of Documents: The court relied on documents, including a ruling by the Native
Lands Commission and a deed by David Wilkinson dating back to 1896, which described the
land as being granted to the Namulomulo villagers for their use and occupation.
Ownership Status: The court rejected arguments suggesting that the Namulomulo villagers only
had limited rights of occupation. Instead, it interpreted the grant by Wilkinson as conferring full
rights of ownership to the villagers, subject to the reversionary right of the Mataqali Nalagi.
Rejection of Limited Rights: The court dismissed claims that the villagers were merely lessees
or licensees of the land, asserting that they held ownership-in-common, which implied more than
a limited right of occupation.
Rights to Rent: The court held that the Namulomulo villagers were entitled to receive all rents
and profits from the land they occupied. It emphasized that Wilkinson's grant did not restrict
their rights to deal with the land, including receiving rent.
Declarations and Orders: The court issued declarations affirming the villagers' ownership-in-
common of the land and their right to receive rent exclusively. It also directed the Native Lands
Commission and Native Land Trust Board to recognize and act accordingly.
Costs: The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs' costs for the proceedings.
In summary, the court's decision confirms the full rights of ownership held by the Namulomulo
villagers over the land, subject only to the reversionary right of the Mataqali Nalagi. It clarifies
that the villagers are entitled to receive all rents and profits from the land they occupy.
The case involves a dispute over the ownership and rights to land known as "Namulomulo Town
Lands" in Fiji. The Tui Nawaka, representing the Mataqali Nalagi, contested the right of the
Namulomulo villagers to retain profits from the land. The Namulomulo villagers claimed full
ownership-in-common of the land, based on historical documents, including a ruling by the
Native Lands Commission and a deed by David Wilkinson from 1896. The court rejected
arguments suggesting the villagers only had limited rights, affirming their full ownership rights
subject to the reversionary right of the Mataqali Nalagi. The court ruled in favor of the villagers,
declaring them as rightful owners-in-common of the land and entitled to receive all rents and
profits from it. Additionally, the court ordered the relevant authorities to recognize and act upon
this decision.
 4. Maharaj –v- Chand [1986] 32 FLR 119
This legal case, Sheila Maharaj v Jai Chand, revolves around the dispute between a former de
facto husband (the plaintiff) and his former partner (the defendant) regarding the possession of a
house that they had lived in together for several years. Here's a breakdown of the key points and
the court's decision:
Background: The plaintiff and the defendant lived together for twelve years as a couple, during
which they had one child together, and the defendant had two children from a previous
relationship.
Property Ownership: The plaintiff obtained a lease for land from the Fiji Housing Authority to
build a house. He financed the construction of the house, but the defendant contributed indirectly
through household expenses using her modest earnings.
Legal Framework: The land was subject to the Native Land Trust Act, which required consent
from the Native Land Trust Board for any dealing with the land. Section 12 of the Act prohibited
any alienation or dealing with the land without the Board's consent.
Estoppel Argument: The defendant argued that the plaintiff was estopped from denying her
right to reside in the house permanently, based on their long-standing relationship and the
representations made by the plaintiff that the house would be their permanent home.
Court Decision:
The court found that the defendant's right to reside in the house was a purely personal right and
did not constitute a dealing with the land under section 12 of the Native Land Trust Act.
The court also concluded that the defendant had a legitimate claim based on promissory estoppel,
as the plaintiff had represented to her that the house would be their permanent home, and she had
acted to her detriment based on that representation.
Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing her to remain in the house
permanently, with no order for costs.
In summary, the court upheld the defendant's right to stay in the house based on the doctrine of
promissory estoppel, despite the legal complexities surrounding the land ownership under the
Native Land Trust Act.
The case of Sheila Maharaj v Jai Chand involves a dispute over the possession of a house
between a former de facto couple. Sheila Maharaj (the defendant) and Jai Chand (the plaintiff)
lived together for twelve years, during which they had one child together, and Sheila had two
children from a previous relationship. Jai obtained a lease for land from the Fiji Housing
Authority to build a house, which he financed. However, Sheila contributed indirectly to
household expenses using her earnings. The land was governed by the Native Land Trust Act,
which required consent from the Native Land Trust Board for any dealings with the land.
Jai sought possession of the house, but Sheila argued that he was estopped from denying her the
right to reside there permanently, based on their long-standing relationship and his
representations that the house would be their permanent home.
The court found that Sheila's right to reside in the house was a personal right and not a dealing
with the land under the Native Land Trust Act. Additionally, the court ruled in favor of Sheila
based on promissory estoppel, as Jai had represented to her that the house would be their
permanent home, and she had acted to her detriment based on that representation.
As a result, the court allowed Sheila to remain in the house permanently, with no order for costs.
In summary, the court upheld Sheila's right to stay in the house based on promissory estoppel,
despite the legal complexities surrounding land ownership under the Native Land Trust Act.
5. Kanakana & Ors –v- State [2010] FJHC 563