Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Fiji Land Transport Appeals Tribunal

  Download original PDF

Waqaituinayau v Land Transport Authority [2018] FJLTAT 8; Appeal 137.2018 (15 June 2018)

Land Transport Appeals Tribunal
Sitting @ Suva Appeal# 137 of 2018

Between: Waisake Eroni Delai Waqaituinayau

Appellant

And: Land Transport Authority

Respondent

Appearance and Representation

Appellant: Present – Mr V. Vosarogo (Mamlakah Lawyers).
For LTA: Mr G. Stephens.

Judgment

Introduction

Waisake Eroni Delai Waqatuinayau, the Appellant has appealed the decision (dated 15^th November 2016) of the LTA declining his request for the renewal of the Minibus Permit - MB200. The decision of the LTA is contained in a letter dated 1^st December 2016.

The Decision

The LTA gave the following reasons for refusing to renew the minibus permit:

“...2. The Authority in the Public Service Vehicle (PSV) Board Meeting held on 15^th November, 2016 at the Land Transport Authority (LTA) Valelevu Conference room has considered all the information put before it and has resolved to summarily dismiss the appeal for renewal of the expired minibus permit on the following justification:

1. That the permit holder had ample time to lodge the renewal of Permit No. MB200.
2. The need and demand from the Base/Stand has also changed.”
   

The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant’s grounds for appeal are as follows:

“1. The Authority erred in fact and in law in holding that the permit holder had ample time to lodge the renewal of Permit No MB200 when such timeframe had not been communicated to the Appellant by the Respondent by virtue of its function and responsibilities according to law.

2. The Authority erred in fact and in law in suggesting that the need and demand from the Base/Stand has also changed without stating the basis of such decision and explanation of what the decision meant to the Appellant.

3. The Authority erred in fact and in law in holding that the Appellant had exceeded the redeeming period of MB200 without taking into account the reason as to why it was initially surrendered and the remedial process the Appellant had to do to recover the surrendered MB200, including but limited to humanitarian reasons peculiar to the Appellant.

4. The Authority erred in law and in fact in its reasoning for the Appellant to reapply when the freeze is over when the MB200 had not been reallocated to anyone by the Respondent through its process.