HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Anga Estate, Re	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	18 August 2025	
		
Parties: 	Barnabas Anga, Public Trustee and Dixon Anga 	
		
Date of hearing: 	1 December 2023	
		
Court file number(s): 	467 of 2022	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Bird; PJ 	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	Consequently, I allow the application of the Public Trustee and grant the order contained in paragraph 1 of application/claim. The assets shall be distributed according to law with proper discussion with those found to be beneficiaries. I hereby order.	
		
Representation: 	Mr Richard Muaki for the Appellant
Mr Billy Titiulu for the Objector 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Wills, Probate and Administration Act [cap 33] S 29, Public Trustee Act [31] S 5, S 3 (1) (a),	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 467 of 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:IN THE ESTATE OF Barnabas Anga, Deceased.
Intestate, late of Gwaunasu, Makwanu, Malaita

AND IN THE MATTER OF: Public Trustee Act, Section 5 & 7

AND IN THE MATTER OF: Application by the Public Trustee for Administration

AND IN THE MATTER OF: Objection by Dixon Anga

Date of Hearing: 1 December 2023
Date of Decision: 18 August 2025

Mr Richard Muaki for the Appellant 
Mr Billy Titiulu for the Objector 
JUDGMENT 
Bird PJ:
1. 	This proceeding is about the estate of the late Barnabas Anga who died intestate in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea on the 9th July 2021. The deceased is from Lau in the Malaita Province. 
2. 	Upon instructions from Joyce Kelani Anga, the Public applied for letters of administration (LOA). Joyce is from Langalanga in Malaita Province. Joyce regards herself as the deceased’s wife at the time of his demise. It is further asserted that Joyce and the deceased had two children of their union. The first child was Joyce’s child with another person. That child was living with the family in Port Moresby and considered as one of the children of the deceased.
3. 	The Objector, Nelson Lauia Anga is one of the deceased’s younger brothers. The deceased was the eldest child in their family of six children. The Objector’s main contention is that the deceased was never married to Joyce. He further states that Joyce’s two younger children could not have been the deceased’s because he was infertile. It is also asserted by the Objector that the wife of the deceased is one Leanne Karova Anga. They were married on the 31st October 1993 at Kukum SDA Church in Honiara. They were separated in 1998 but never got legally divorced. He says that he is the right person to be appointed administrator of the estate of the late Barnabas Anga.
4. 	In summary therefore, the Objector says that the deceased and Joyce were never married to each other. He also questions the suitability of the Public Trustee to be appointed as Administrator of the estate.
5. 	The Public Trustee lodged the application for LOA pursuant to section 5 of the Public Trustee Act (Cap 31) as read with section 29 of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act (Cap 33) (WPAA).
6. 	The Public Trustee is appointed under section 3 (1) (a) of the Public Trustee Act. The purpose of the appointment is to carry out the provisions of the Act. Under s. 4, if the Public Trustee has received notice of the death of a person in Solomon Islands, he/she may apply to the court for probate of a will or for letters of administration to the estate of such deceased person.
7. 	In this case, Joyce has instructed the Public Trustee to file an application for letters of administration. There is nothing wrong in law for the Public Trustee to file the application.
8. 	The main thrust of the Objector’s contention is premised upon his view that Joyce and her children are not entitled as beneficiaries of the estate. It is upon that view that he has filed his objection to the application. He said the deceased’s legal wife is still living. He also contends that according to Lau custom in Malaita from which the deceased hailed, the union between Joyce and the deceased cannot be recognised as a valid custom marriage. Members of his family were not aware and did not pay any bride price to Joyce’s family to signify the validity of a custom marriage.
9. 	On the contrary, Joyce said that the deceased paid bride price to her family to validate their union as married according to custom. The payment of bride price was done by the deceased himself, on the 12th December 2009 in Honiara at Ngossi Ridge. The occasion took place at her elder sister’s residence. Those who were present were her late parents, William Maeorea Walefia and Maria Gelita’a, her uncle Joseph Waleanisia, her elder sister Catherine Annie Anifai and her husband and another sister Lucy.
10. 	The bride price paid by the deceased to her family consisted of five shell money tafuliae and five galia, a special shell money mainly used by Langalanga people. Joyce and the deceased have lived together as husband and wife since 2007 to the day he passed. A period of 14 years.  During that period, none of his family members raised any issue about their union with each other. It was only after the deceased’s demise that his family members raised issues about the validity of their custom marriage and the children.
11. 	Joyce and the deceased have two children of their union. They are Wilmah Lifuna Anga born on the 5th December 2011 and Jamie Gonzalez Anga born on the 27th May 2016. Her eldest daughter Lucy Gelifia Anga is not the deceased’s biological child. Nonetheless, she has been living with Joyce and the deceased since they were together. During his lifetime, the deceased looked upon her as his daughter and gave her his surname. She is known as Lucy Gelifia Anga. 
12. 	Joyce further said that she and the children have accompanied the deceased to his village in Malaita to visit family members during the subsistence of their union. In effect, family members from both sides of their union accepted them as a couple and family. None of the deceased’s family members including the objector have expressed their disagreement about their union during his lifetime.
13. 	The Objector in effect was entrusted with responsibility by the deceased and Joyce to look after the deceased’s vehicle registration number MB1826, a speed boat and money to facilitate the completion of their house in parcel number 191-056-284.  To this day the properties are not accounted for and the house is yet to be completed. The Objector has breached the trust endowed upon him by the deceased.
14. 	Having discussed the above positions, it is obvious that the Objector views Joyce and her children as not entitled to the deceased’s estate. The deceased was never married to Joyce in accordance with custom. Additionally, he denies that the two younger children belonged to the deceased.
15. 	I have perused the various case authorities in this jurisdiction in respect of the issue at hand. The discussion by Justice Kabui (as he was then) in CC108/98 is of great essence in this proceeding. In discussing the issue of validity of custom marriage, he said “the most important thing is that the parties agreed to live together as husband and wife and is accepted by their families and relatives. All the ceremony and the pomp can be foregone if the circumstances of the case so dictate but without affecting the validity of the marriage”. The learned Judge also quoted from the marriage Act 1823 that the deciding factor in any one given situation is the knowledge and intention of the parties.
16. 	In this case, Joyce and the deceased have been living together for about 14 years. The deceased was living and working in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Joyce and the three children were living with him in Port Moresby until his demise. They lived together as husband and wife with the three children. The very long length of time that they have spent together would signify in my view their intention to live together as husband and wife and raise their three children. 
17. 	The payment of bride price by the deceased during his lifetime to Joyce’s relatives would further signify his intention to be married to her. The bride price was accepted by Joyce’s family members. There is also evidence of acceptance by the deceased’s family members. They went together as a family unit to the deceased’s village on one occasion. No issues were raised by his family members about their union.
18. 	From the above discussion, I can see no legal impediment that would affect the standing of the Public Trustee to apply for letters of administration in respect of the deceased. The Public Trustee is an independent body that has been established through the Public Trustee Act. Upon instruction from Joyce, the application was routinely filed.
19. 	The Objector is a brother of the deceased. He also intends to be appointed as administrator of the estate. I have perused and discussed the summary of evidence on behalf of the Objector. The summary points to only one fact. He is of the view that Joyce and her three children are not entitled to benefit from the estate of the deceased.
20. 	I have also discussed the evidence and allegations made by Joyce against the Objector in paragraph 13 above. The Objector did not respond to Joyce’s sworn statement in that regard. I can therefore accept that piece of evidence as correct and true.
21. 	In the event that the Objector is granted letters of administration, he would not be able to perform his legal duty and obligation to properly administer the estate of the deceased according to law. He could be seen as being bias against Joyce and the three children.
22. 	Having said all of the above, I am reasonably satisfied that the union between the deceased and Joyce from about 2007 to the date of demise constituted a valid customary marriage. It would therefore follow that Joyce and the three children namely Lucy Gelifia Anga, Wilmah Lifuna Anga and Jamie Gonzalez Anga are beneficiaries to the estate of the late Barnabas Anga.
23. 	The Objector has a vested interest in the estate. He has made up his mind that Joyce and the three children should not be entitled to receive any benefits from the estate. With that in mind, I am not satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to administer the estate. His objection to the application by the Public Trustees is hereby refused.
24. 	Consequently, I allow the application of the Public Trustee and grant the order contained in paragraph 1 of application/claim. The assets shall be distributed according to law with proper discussion with those found to be beneficiaries. I hereby order.
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge