Court to decide fate of 104 Public Rental Board tenants

The High Court in Suva will decide whether the Public Rental Board can proceed with renovations to a 1965 housing block in Mead Road, Nabua.

The board says the building poses a significant safety risk, while concerns remain over where the 104 tenants will live during the works.

Both legal representatives appeared before Justice Angala Wati today for the hearing of PRB’s application under Section 169 of the Land Transfer Act 1971.

PRB has argued that the building, which has stood since 1965, is unstable and poses a significant risk of collapse.

During the hearing, PRB lawyer Shelvin Singh told the court that while PRB was a public enterprise bound by the Constitution, it had a responsibility to protect life and remained concerned about the wellbeing of the 104 tenants in the event of seismic activity or an earthquake.

Mr Singh said two affidavits submitted to the court suggested the housing structure was not strong enough and required reinforcement at the top and bottom.

He argued that this could no longer be ignored. Mr Singh also argued that PRB had no contractual or statutory duty to provide alternative housing for the tenants.

He referred to a recent case involving two children who were hospitalised after being injured in a fire at the Suva Civic Centre.

Mr Singh said the consequences of not carrying out the renovations could involve the lives of the tenants.

He said while the tenants had a right to housing, they also had a right to life and the 1965 building needed to be renovated immediately.

He said tenants were notified twice of PRB’s intention to renovate the building — on December 12 and 15, 2025.

Respondent lawyer Ilisapeci Tunamena of Tufani Lawyers told the court that the Ministry of Housing and the Office of the Prime Minister were in the process of drafting a proposal seeking a five-year term for the tenants while funds were raised to buy land.

Ms Tunamena said if the tenants were allowed to save $50 a week for five years, they could save $60,000, enough to buy a block of land.

She argued that the 104 tenants were low-income earners and that displacing them would leave them in an even more difficult situation.

She also argued that there should have been nationwide awareness about the notice three years earlier.

She said while eviction was inevitable, “the question now was — where do they go?”

Mr Singh objected, saying the Government proposal was not covered in the submission and that Ms Tunamena was giving evidence from the bar table.

Mr Singh also referred to Section 21 of the Public Health Act. Justice Wati will deliver her judgment on September 23.