IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO.: HBC 204 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

BA CARRIER OPERATORS
PLAINTIFF

AND:

LAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
DEFENDANT

Mr. S.K. Ram for the Plaintiff
Mr. K. Qoro for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is a registered body under the provisions of Industrial Associations Act (Cap. 95). Its members are engaged in the business of carrier operators. Carriers are normally used to transport people from remote parts of Fiji where buses and taxis either do not operate or refuse to go due to road conditions. These carriers have become an integral part of our transport system and forms an important component of it.

The complaint in this case is that the officers of the defendant authority are ordering members of the plaintiff body to remove canopies at the back of the carrier, seizing such vehicle and refusing to renew a carrier licence on grounds that a canopy is constructed on the carrier.

Section 63(d) of the Land Transport Act 1998 empowers the Authority to issue carrier licences. A carrier is defined as a motor vehicle constructed and equipped for safe carriage of passengers and goods such that the majority of the passengers are seated in a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment.

The Land Transport (Public Service Vehicles) Regulation 2000 at Regulation 53 provides for requirements for carriers. The only relevant portion is Subsection 6 which envisages some form of safe enclosure for passengers at the rear. It reads:

"If the rear passenger area is not fully enclosed to the satisfaction of the Certifying Officer, it must be enclosed with –

(a)	welded steel mesh; or

(b)	pipes or other approved material fixed not less than 200mm apart,attached to the side panel and the roll bars."

This regulation entitles the Land Transport Authority to issue a carrier licence provided all the provisions of this regulation are complied with. Regulation 53 sets out the basic minimum requirements for carriers. They are designed to ensure safety and comfort of passengers.

By putting a canopy the operators ensure the passengers protection from sunlight and also from rain. These carriers often carry goods as well which could easily get ruined if they are exposed to rain. People from the interior often do their shopping in towns and take these back home. Imagine what disaster would befall if items like sharps, flour, sugar, or salt to name a few were to be exposed to rain. Far from being a safety hazard or a item of discomfort, these canopies perform a very useful function in protecting the passengers and the goods.

Simply because a carrier is mounted with a canopy ought not to be made a ground for seizure or detention of a carrier in asking that such canopies be removed.

Accordingly I order that the officers or servants of the defendant be restrained from:

(a)	removing, dismantling or making orders for removal of canopies from licenced carriers,

(b)	seizing or detaining licenced carriers on the sole grounds that carriers are fitted with canopies.

I make no order as to costs as the defendant has only put a token resistance in this action.

[Jiten Singh ]
JUDGE

At Lautoka
1st July 2005