Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Tuvalu

Tui v Iakopo [2014] TVHC 10; Land Appeal 03.2013 (21 February 2014)

In The High Court of Tuvalu
HC. Land App. case no. 3/13
At Funafuti

Lands Appellate Jurisdiction

Between:

Peniata Tui
Appellant

v

Lopati Iakopo
Respondent

BEFORE THE JUDGE

Ms. Filiga Taukiei for the appellant.
Ms. Laigane Italeli for the respondent.

Appeal from the Senior Magistrate's court.

This is another piece of litigation which is crying out to be brought to finality, once and for all. Yet it seems to have become bogged down in technicalities which do not go to the merits at all.

In 2003 the Funafuti Lands Court decided in favour of the present appellant – that the land Matafele belongs to him (and others). There was no appeal from that decision. For a number of years the appellant tried to enforce the decision and to get rid of the respondent living in a house on his land. He failed.

Chief Justice Ward in Tui v Iakopo [2011] TVHC 4; Civil Appeal 2 of 2010) in 2011 by implication confirmed the appellant's ownership:

"[17] In any such case, the Lands Court will need to establish who is the lawful occupant of the land. In Peniata's case, the evidence will be the judgment of the court in 2003. It was not appealed and its terms clearly establish the validity of Peniata's claim."

This court as effectively the final court of appeal should strive to confirm that ownership and bring the litigation to an end.

The learned Senior Magistrate when the case came before him on appeal from the Lands Appeal Panel decided that the appeal to the Panel had been out of time, what the Panel had been wrong to exercise its discretion, pursuant to section 25(2) of the Native Lands Act, to extend time and to hear the appeal. Yes there is nothing to show that the Panel wrongly exercised its discretion.

A court on appeal should not upset the exercise of a discretion by an inferior court unless it finds the discretion to have been wrongly exercised. The Panel had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appellant succeeds on this appoint.

The learned Senior Magistrate also decided against the appellant as the appellant has not filed his written submission in the time stipulated in an order. With due respect to the learned Senior Magistrate this is a technicality on which a decision in the case should not be made. The appellant succeeds on this point also.

The appeal is allowed.

Date 21st day of February 2014.

Hon. Robin Millhouse QC
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF TUVALU