HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Aranga Estate, Re	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	15 May 2025	
		
Parties: 	Joseph Aranga and Stephen Dila 	
		
Date of hearing: 	15 May 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	532 of 2023	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Aulanga; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1.	The application for letters of administration over land parcel PE: 135-001-1 is refused and dismissed pursuant to Rule 9.75 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
2.	The land (PE: 135-001-1) is a trust property, held on behalf of the Kwaafunia Landholding Group, and does not form part of the personal estate of the deceased trustees.
3.	Refuse to order referral of the appointment of the trustees to the Local Court pursuant to section 105 of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act.
4.	Costs of the hearing shall be paid by the applicant to all the objectors on a standard basis.
THE COURT	
		
Representation: 	Mr. N. Laurere for Stephen Dila (applicant)
Mr. L. Kwaiga for William Tofasi (first objector)
Mr. M. R. Mona for Ambrose Oiofa Dolofera (second objector)
Mr. J. Toofilu for Adrian Billy Firimolea and Mariano Futaiasi (third objectors)	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Wills, Probate and Administration [cap 33], S 105, 
Land and Titles Act [cap 133] 
Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r 9.75	
		
Cases cited:	Lolo v Kwaioloa [2014] SBHC 25, 	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 532 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF: 

IN THE ESTATE OF LATE JOSEPH ARANGA OF RODOUSIA VILLAGE, NORTH MALAITA, MALAITA PROVINCE, SOLOMON ISLANDS
(DECEASED INTESTATE)

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

WILLS, PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION ACT (CAP 33)

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

AN APPLICATION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION BY STEPHEN DILA (SON OF LATE JOSEPH ARANGA)

Date of Hearing: 15 May 2025
Date of Extempore Ruling: 15 May 2025
RULING 
AULANGA; PJ:
1. 	This matter concerns an application for letters of administration by the applicant, Stephen Dila, the son of late Joseph Aranga, over a portion of land identified as Parcel PE: 135-001-1 situated at Kwailabesi in Mbaelelea, North Malaita. The land was registered in 1970 in the names of Joseph Aranga and Sakita as trustees holding the land on behalf of the Kwaafunia Landholding Group in accordance with Mbaelelea customary law. By virtue of a statutory declaration made by Joseph Aranga and Sakita on 23rd January 1970, at paragraph (i), it is clear that the said registered land was held as a trust property for members of the Kwaafunia Landholding Group who are the beneficiaries of the land. As such, it is trite conclusion to hold that the land in question is not Aranga and Sakita’s personal property, but a trust property.
2. 	There was evidence that prior to the registration, the applicant’s party owned the land that contains the registered land by virtue of a 13th August 1936 District Commissioner Ben Guff’s decision. What transpired during the 1936 court proceeding is immaterial for me to consider. It appears that the land was on commercial lease to Seventh Day Adventist prior to the registration, with expiration in 1970.
3. 	Both trustees have since passed away, and no successors have been formally registered. The applicant now applies for letters of administration under the Wills, Probate and Administration Act (Cap 33), seeking to administer the land as if it was a personal property of his late father.  It is important to note for the purpose of this proceeding that the applicant confines his application for administration of the estate and not for orders for appointment or replacement of trustees.
4. 	A meeting of the Kwaafunia Landholding Group was convened on 23rd July 2017 at Tagulao village, during which the applicant was nominated to be one of the replacement trustees. The other nominated trustees to replace the deceased trustees were Edwin Dilaomea, James Laukwao and Robert Kako. However, the minutes of that meeting are unclear as to whether the applicant was specifically authorised to apply for letters of administration of the trust property.
5. 	Three objections were filed. First by William Tofasi; second by Ambrose Oiofa Dolofera, and third; jointly by Adrian Billy Firimolea and Mariano Futaiasi.
6. 	Mr. Tofasi raised his party’s lack of knowledge regarding the acquisition and registration of the land and asserted that they were not privy to the decisions relied upon by the applicant. He also pointed out that the land remains the subject of a pending dispute in Local Court Case No. 11 of 2021. Additionally, he argued that the land is not part of the personal estate of the late Aranga and Sakita, but rather a trust property for members of the customary landowning group. On that basis, he submitted that it is inappropriate to seek letters of administration. Tofasi also raised that the applicant had previously brought the same proceeding in HCSI CC 427 of 2018, which was struck out for want of prosecution. Rather than applying to have that order set aside, the applicant initiated a fresh proceeding, an action which Tofasi characterises as an abuse of court’s process. He therefore asked that the proceeding be dismissed and suggested a referral of the appointment of the beneficiaries of the land to the Local Court pursuant to section 105 of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act.
7. 	The second objector, Ambrose Oiofa Dolofera, adopted the submissions of counsel for Tofasi and similarly asserted that his party are also beneficiaries of the land. He too preferred that the matter be resolved through the appointment of trustees and beneficiaries, in accordance with section 105 the Wills, Probate and Administration Act. The third objectors made submissions in the same manner.
Issues for Determination 
8. 	The facts of this matter and the divergent submissions of counsels, in my view, have raised these two pertinent issues: (i) whether the applicant can be granted letters of administration over land held in trust for a customary landholding group, and (ii) whether the applicant is entitled to administer the land in place of the deceased trustees.
Whether the applicant can be granted letters of administration over land held in trust for a customary landholding group
9. 	It is clear from the registration and the factual history of the proceeding that the registered land was held in trust by Aranga and Sakita for the customary landholding group in Mbaelelea. That is, on behalf of the Kwaafunia Landholding Group. The Statutory Declaration annexed “SD-3” of the applicant sworn statement filed on 25th October 2023 is clear that it was a trust property and not as part of their personal estates.  In my view, the land is therefore not subject to the laws governing probate and estate administration, such as the Wills, Probate and Administration Act.  In other words, it is not owned individually and cannot be devised or distributed by probate so that the applicant can be given letters of administration over the land.
10. 	The inappropriateness to grant letters of administration over a perpetual estate in land held in trust was recognised in Evo v Rizu [2014] SBHC 160 when the Court was dealing with the issue of whether the applicant can be granted letters of administration over a perpetual estate in land held in trust for the beneficiaries. In refusing the application, the Court said:
	“This Perpetual Estate Parcel no 098-004-1 is not the personal properties of late Isaac Kova who was granted the letter of administration but held by the late Mulebi and Robert Saeve for the interest of beneficiaries. The fact that Isaac Kova had died the letter of administration does give or bestow upon him the right on perpetual estate to be neither his estate nor residuary estate. It would not be for distribution under the process or devolution under Part III of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act”.
11. 	Since the land in question is held in trust for the communal benefit of the Kwaafunia Landholding Group, this renders it to be outside the scope of personal wills and probate, and therefore, is inappropriate for any order for letters of administration to be given by the Court. The appropriate process is for the applicant’s party to make substitution of trustees under the procedures provided under the Land and Titles Act (Cap. 133).
Whether the applicant is entitled to administer the land in place of the deceased trustees.
12. 	Next is the issue of whether the the applicant is entitled to administer the land in place of the deceased trustees. This issue takes into account whether the applicant has the mandate and the authority of the Kwaafunia Landholding Group to commence this proceeding at the High Court for an order for legal administration over the land. 
13. 	The applicant relies on the 2017 meeting convened at Tagulao village, during which the applicant was nominated to be one of the replacement trustees annexed as “SD-5” of the applicant’s sworn statement filed on 25th October 2023. However, the minutes are ambiguous. There was no clear resolution reached by the beneficiaries authorising the applicant to apply for letters of administration at the High Court.
14. 	Even if such authority was given, in my view, the proper procedure would not be for the applicant to apply for letters of administration, but to seek substitution of trustees either by way of application to the Registrar of Titles under the Land and Titles Act or to commence a proceeding for specific reliefs for appointment of the trustees and beneficiaries under the Wills, Probate and Administration Act with an option for the Court to invoke section 105 of the Act.
15. 	The applicant did not commence the proceeding on that basis and during the oral arguments had vigorously objected for an order for referral of appointment of the beneficiaries to the Local Court pursuant to section 105 of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act. As such, I will not make any order for referral of the matter pursuant to section 105 of the Act and for that reason, it is my view that there is no cause of action for this matter. I concur with the submissions by the objectors that this proceeding lacks any cause of action and is an abuse of the Court’s process. 
Effect of High Court Case No. 427 of 2018
16. 	A further concerning matter is the earlier High Court Civil Case No. 427 of 2018, which was struck out for want of prosecution. This was raised at paragraph 5.21 of William Tofasi’s sworn statement filed on 21st March 2024. That case involved the same applicant, along with Edwin Dilaomea, James Laukwao, and Robert Kako, seeking administration of the same property (PE:135-001-1). The struck out order remains valid and in force.
17. 	The applicant did not apply to have that order set aside and instead initiated this proceeding. In my view, this amounts to an abuse of process, a terminology well explained in Lolo v Kwaioloa [2014] SBHC 25. That prior order remains valid until it is set aside by interlocutory application or appeal. What the applicant has effectively done is to misuse the legal process. He decided to bypass the proper legal process and commenced this proceeding which is repetitive and amounts to a duplicity of the court proceeding. This duplication of proceedings is both improper, vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process recognised under Rule 9.75 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
Conclusion and Orders
18. 	Having considered the facts, objections, and legal principles, I make the following orders:
1.	The application for letters of administration over land parcel PE: 135-001-1 is refused and dismissed pursuant to Rule 9.75 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
2.	The land (PE: 135-001-1) is a trust property, held on behalf of the Kwaafunia Landholding Group, and does not form part of the personal estate of the deceased trustees.
3.	Refuse to order referral of the appointment of the trustees to the Local Court pursuant to section 105 of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act.
4.	Costs of the hearing shall be paid by the applicant to all the objectors on a standard basis.
THE COURT
Hon. Justice Augustine S. Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE