IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. HAA 21 of 2018

LAND TRSNSPORT AUTHORITY (“LTA”)

V

NASOQO INVESTMENT LIMITED (“NIL”)

Counsel	:	Mr. G. Stevens for LTA
			Mr. A. Kohli with Miss R. Raj for NIL

Date of Hearing		: 	3 April 2019
Date of Judgment	:  	17 April 2019

JUDGMENT

1.	On the 21st June 2017 in Vunivau, Bua, the driver of a vehicle 	owned by NIL was stopped by an authorized officer of the LTA 	who suspected that it was overloaded. The vehicle was 	permitted to be of a gross weight of 26.8 tonnes but when 	weighed it was of 41.34 tonnes, an excess of 14.54 tonnes. A 	Traffic Infringement Notice (“TIN”) was served on the driver as 	agent of NIL.

2.	On the 29th September, a Director of NIL wrote to the 	Magistrates Court at Labasa stating that he wanted to dispute 	the alleged infringement. 

3.	The matter was heard before a Resident Magistrate in Labasa on 	the 13th February 2018, when the LTA called two witnesses to 	attest to the arrest of the vehicle, the weight of the vehicle when 	arrested, and the serving of the TIN on the named driver, as 	agent of the vehicle owner. 

4.	The LTA then closed its case. Counsel for NIL moved for time to 	file an application for no case to answer. Time was given to both 	parties to file submissions.

5.	Four months later, on the 12th June 2018 the Resident 	Magistrate ruled that there was no case to answer, and then 	acquitted the Respondent.

6.	By these proceedings, the LTA appeals that decision to stop the 	case and acquit the respondent company. 

7.	Both parties have filed detailed and comprehensive submissions 	in this appeal and while this Court would find favour with the 	grounds and submissions of the LTA, unfortunately the Court 	does not have jurisdiction to determine the appeal. 

8.	Section 246(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 reads:

	“No appeal shall lie against an order of acquittal except by, 	or with the sanction in writing of the Director of Public 	Prosecutions or the Commissioner of the Fiji Independent 	Commission against Corruption”.

9.	There being no consent filed from either of those agencies, the 	legislation mandates that there can be no appeal.

10.	It matters not that the Respondent’s original application for no 	case was ill conceived. It was premised on the basis that the 	driver was not given the opportunity to off load part of the 	overweight goods, when the Land Transport (Vehicles 	Registration and Construction) Regulations 2000 makes that an 	option on the part of the arresting officer, not a duty. The word 	used in the sections is “may” and not “must”. 

11.	Unfortunately the learned Magistrate was led into error by the 	ill-conceived and misleading half time submissions of counsel 	below.

12.	The appeal is dismissed not for lack of merit, but for lack of 	jurisdiction. 

Orders

1.	The appeal is dismissed.
2.	No order for costs is made.

   			P. K. Madigan
		       Judge

At Labasa
17 April 2019