PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Vanuatu

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2000 >> [2000] VUSC 34

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Belbong v Hakwa [2000] VUSC 34; Civil Case 054 of 1994 (10 July 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No.54 of 1994

BETWEEN:

ERNEST BELBONG

Appellant

AND:

PAUL HAKWA

Respondent

Coram: Before Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Ms Cynthia Thomas - Clerk

Mr Ernest Belbong, Appellant in person

No appearance by or for the Defendant

JUDGEMENT

On 4th October 1994 the Court below issued certain Orders. certain orders. Order No.2 was issued specifically against the Appellant to the effect that he pays the Respondent the sum of vt2,920. He paid this amount on 11th October and the amount was receipted accordingly. On 17th October, 1994 the Appellant exercised his right of appeal pursuant to Order No.5 of the Orders of 4th October, 1994. He appealed specifically against Order No.2 on the grounds that there was no evidence before the Court below that he was seen with or among the divers who harvested sea-cucumbers on the Respondent's land.

The Respondent was personally ed with a Notice of Hearing issued out of the Court Registrgistry dated 21st May, 2000. He did not appear and the Court proceeded to hear the appeal.

The record of proceedings in the Court below shows very clearly that the Appellan not collect nor dive dived for sea-cucumbers. He was not seen among the divers who were alleged to have dived and collected sea-cucumbers without obtaining permission or authorisation. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Appellant was the driving force behind the divers action. Therefore it was not proper for the judicial officer to hold the Appellant liable on a balance of probability.

For this simple reason, the appeal is allowed. Order No.2 ofOrders of the Court dated 4ted 4th October 1994 is vacated. Further the Respondent has to refund the Appellant in the sum of vt2,920 plus transport costs at vt2,750, a total of vt5,670.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> DATED at Luganville, this 10th day of July, 2000.

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2000/34.html