PAP Candidate LILIANA PARETI WARID: In her acceptance speech she was waxing lyrical about leader RABUKA. She 'forgot' two years ago he tried to force her Uncle's widow to pay outstanding loan he made to him

"The plaintiff (Sitiveni Rabuka), in cross-examination agreed that she [Emmaline Biu Mavoa) was neither involved in the transaction nor personally responsible for the debts of EM. In my judgment, the claim against the second defendant is misconceived and is declined."
A.L.B. Brito-Mutunayagam
Judge, 3 July 2020

"My name is Liliana Pareti Warid and I am deeply honored to be nominated as a provisional candidate for The People’s Alliance. I am originally from Daliconi village in Vanuabalavu, Lau, with maternal links to Kabara, Lau."
Fijileaks: Has she also recently forgotten her leader's blatant lies when he blamed the late Lauan chief Ratu Mara for being behind his COUP?

"I stand here today on the shoulders of those who have gone before me. Those that sacrificed and worked hard so that you and I could have better lives so that we could be better people and achieve greater things. My grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and many others have built the foundation that I stand on today."
PAP Candidate Liliana Pareti Warid's Acceptance Speech

Fijileaks: Our Founding Editor-in-Chief, who knew her late grandfather JONATI MAVOA from the Alliance Party days (he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, Civil Aviation and Tourism; died in June 1985), and her uncle, the late ERONI MAVOA (her mother Olivia and Eroni are the daughter and son of Jonati Mavoa), was surprised to hear Liliana Pareti Warid wax lyrical about her party leader Sitiveni Rabuka in her acceptance speech.
* Sadly, only four years ago, he tried to fleece thousands of dollars from her uncle's widow, EMMALINE BIU MAVOA, claiming that she must be held responsible for paying as executor of her late husband's estate the outstanding loan. As expected, the Fiji High Court threw out his claim.
* Rabuka, in cross-examination agreed that Emmaline Biu Mavoa was neither involved in the transaction nor personally responsible for the debts of Eroni Mavoa. The Fiji High Court ruled the claim against her was misconceived and was declined.
*All the time, Rabuka was pleading poverty, claiming he was collecting and selling bottles to make a living.

Candidate Acceptance Speech
Liliana Pareti Warid

Please let me begin by acknowledging our Party President, Na Momo na Tui Nadi, Ratu Vuniani Navuniuci; Party Leader Sitiveni Rabuka; ladies and gentlemen. Cola vina riki!

My name is Liliana Pareti Warid and I am deeply honored to be nominated as a provisional candidate for The People’s Alliance. I am originally from Daliconi village in Vanuabalavu, Lau with maternal links to Kabara, Lau.

Politics was never part of my plan however I serve a God whose plans supersede mine and late last year he called me into this season. After I had finally accepted that this was the new plan, I realised that the whole 45 years of my existence has prepared me for this season. My experience and achievements personally and professionally - in the corporate world, in the community, in church, in my family has all been to equip me for this season. And I believe that the final nominated candidates for The People's Alliance would have all been prepared and called for such a time as this.

I stand here today on the shoulders of those who have gone before me. Those that sacrificed and worked hard so that you and I could have better lives, so that we could be better people and achieve greater things. My grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and many others have built the foundation that I stand on today.

With this foundation, just like they did for me, I now stand for those coming after me. For my children and grandchildren - for your children and grandchildren of Fiji. So they can be better, do better, achieve greater!

Now more than ever, we need to stand for our children, the future of Fiji.

* I am tired of having our children see 16 years arrogant, selfish, disrespectful leadership - bearing witness as leaders lie through their teeth.

* I am tired of seeing our children losing the battle with substance abuse such as drugs and alcohol - with no appropriate rehab facilities to help them.
* I am tired of seeing our children experience abuse.
* I am tired of not being able to speak freely
* I am tired of watching our children turn on the taps and get no water, even worse, dirty water - making them sick.
* I am tired of hearing that no Fijian gets left behind when everywhere I look, I see my people are suffering.
NOW is the time for us to stand. If we don't stand for our children, then who will?

How will our children know what's right and wrong if we don't stand and put a stop to this moral violence that is taking over our country?

There is no one else - the time has come where you and I have to put our foot down and REFUSE to have any more stolen from our future.

Finally, we know there is a mess waiting for us when we get into Government. One that will require a high calibre team with out of the box solutions. We understand it will require personal sacrifice and a strong will. It can seem impossible. However we draw confidence from the God of the impossible whom we serve.

To use the words of where my children come from - “vucukia a vuravura qa to so!”

Malo vakalevu sara.
Liliana Pareti Warid
9 May 2022
Nadi Civic Centre

---

In the High Court of Fiji
At Suva
Civil Jurisdiction

Civil Action No. HBC 296 of 2017

Sitiveni Ligamamada Rabuka
Plaintiff
v
The Estate of the late Eroni Baleiwai Mavoa
First defendant

Emmaline Bui Mavoa
Second defendant

Bruce Rokosiga Ferguson
Third defendant

Counsel : Ms A. Vuki with Mr J. Lanyon for the plaintiff
Ms S. Nayacalevu with Mr V. Seduadua for the second and third defendants

Date of hearing: 7th and 8th November, 2019

Date of Judgment: 3rd July, 2020

Judgment

1. The plaintiff (Rabuka] brings this claim against the defendants to recover the monies he loaned to the first defendant. The first defendant is the estate of the late  Eroni Mavoa, (EM). The second defendant is his legal wife. The third defendant is a businessman trading as Kiodai Enterprise, (KE). The plaintiff obtained default judgment against the first defendant.
2. The statement of claim states that KE “used to purchase, harvest, process and retail mahogany logs and timbers”. EM, acting as business investment collaborator for KE approached the plaintiff with a proposal to invest in the mahogany project of KE. The plaintiff agreed to the proposal. On 7th May, 2015, the first defendant provided a financing proposal, which outlined that the plaintiff’s initial loan of $70,000.00 would secure an annual return of $177,065.00. The plaintiff advanced the second loan of $98,000.00. He was paid interest for the total loan advanced. On 13th September, 2016, EM passed away. The second defendant has not taken out letters of administration.
3. The second defendant in her statement of defence states that the plaintiff failed to make an application to appoint and bring an action against the personal representatives of the late EM. The institution of this action is a nullity. There are no assets to distribute in his estate. She is not in a position to take out letters of administration.
4. The statement of defence of the third defendant states that KE is a solely owned enterprise of the third defendant. It was never in partnership with EM. EM had no authority to negotiate on behalf of KE. The third defendant was not a party and unaware of the loan agreement between the plaintiff and EM. EM advised the plaintiff that he was personally responsible for the funds invested.

The determination

1. The question for determination is whether the second and third defendants are liable for the loan given by the plaintiff to the first defendant.

The second defendant

1. The claim against the second defendant is made on the ground that she is the “legal wife and next of kin of the late (EM) and the person entitled to take out letters of administration for and on behalf of the 1st Defendant”.
2. In my view, the second defendant is entitled to take out letters of administration of the estate. But that does not make her personally liable for the loan given to EM. The plaintiff, in cross examination agreed that she was neither involved in the transaction nor personally responsible for the debts of EM.
3. In my judgment, the claim against the second defendant is misconceived and is declined.

The third defendant

1. The case for the plaintiff is that he loaned monies to EM, the investment collaborator for the business of the third defendant trading as KE. It is alleged that EM represented KE. The third defendant denies the claim.
2. The plaintiff, (PW1) in evidence in chief said that he paid the monies to EM. EM paid him interest. He signed an agreement with EM at a restaurant in the presence of its owner, Ms U. Fa. He did not have a copy of the agreement.
3. PW2, (Ms U. Fa, Barrister and Solicitor) in her evidence said that she was asked by EM to peruse a loan agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant and witnessed by the third defendant regarding a project for mahogany. She was present when it was signed. The agreement stated that EM was an agent for a company, but she could not recall the name of the company.
4. The third defendant, (DW1) said that EM, his father in law) was never involved in his business. He did not have any discussion with the plaintiff nor authorize EM to make any representation. He was not involved in any mahogany project. He got angry when he read the email of 21st April, 2015, which referred to KE and himself.
5. The plaintiff, in cross examination agreed that the averments in his statement of claim stating that he advanced monies to the third defendant were incorrect. EM, in his email to him of 21st April, 2015, and copied to the third defendant said that he will be personally responsible for the funds. There was no deal between him and the third defendant. He did not have any discussions with the third defendant on the transactions at any stage.
6. In my judgment, the evidence reveals that there is no cause of action against the third defendant.
7. I reproduce an excerpt from the email of 21st April, 2015, sent by EM to the plaintiff and copied to the third defendant:

We are using Kio Dai Enterprise (company belonging to Bruce Ferguson – Lea’s husband) as vehicle to harvest, buy, process and sell logs/timber.

Funding will be to him from you but via me. That is, I will be personally responsible for the funds – its use and repayment. So the agreement will be between you and me. I hope this arrangement will be fine with you.(emphasis added)

1. It is clear from the words that I have highlighted that the first defendant was solely responsible for the loan provided.
2. The action against the third defendant is declined.
3. Order
   • (a) The action against the second and third defendants is declined.
   • (b) The plaintiff shall pay costs summarily assessed in a sum of $1500 to the second defendant and $1500 to the third defendant.

A.L.B. Brito-Mutunayagam
Judge
3rd July,2020