Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

  Download original PDF

Reeman v David [2016] VUSC 213; Civil Case 38 of 2015 (15 March 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 38 of 2015

BETWEEN:

JOHN ENOCK REEMAN & FAMILY
First Claimants

AND:

KALSAL DAVID AND LUKE KALSAL
Second Claimants

AND:

APIA CHARLIE AND FAMILY
Third Claimants

AND:

SAUL ENOCK AND FAMILY, ROBSON AND FAMILY, TITU MAISON AND FAMILY, JAMES PAKOA RUBEN AND FAMILY, TATEY T AND FAMILY SAM REISON AND FAMILY, JOHN STANLEY, KEN STANLEY, KALSAL MAEL AND FAMILY, TERRY TULANG AND FAMILY, BOB MANSES AND FAMILY, MOSES WALTER AND FAMILY, MAWA AWELL AND FAMILY, TONY JOANA AND FAMILY, GRAHAM YOAN AND FAMILY, REUBEN AWELL AND FAMILY
Fourth Claimants

AND:

PAUL MAKI AND FAMILY, SABI BETUEL AND FAMILY KETES HARRY AND FAMILY, BOB HOMU AND FAMILY, HUNGAI HOMU AND FAMILY AND JERENIMO ESRON AND FAMILY
Fifth Claimants

AND:

ALBEA DAVID AND COUNCIL (EMIL MAEL, PERTHA JACKSON, NORMAN SAMULE, FRANK TOVO, GEORGE SIMELUM AND MAKI SIMELUM
First Defendants

AND:

REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
Second Defendant

JUDGMENT

1. By Order dated 1st March 2016 this matter was adjourned to today for the hearing of the Republic's application to have the claimant's claims and proceeding struck out. The claimants and the First Defendants were required to have filed their responses and evidence by sworn statements within 14 days.
2. The claimants have not complied with that direction. Mr Laumae for the First Defendants tells the Court today that his clients support the application by the State to have this proceeding and claims struck out with costs.
3. The State filed the application on 25th February 2016 together with the supporting evidence by sworn statement of Jean Marc Pierre. Service was effected on 3rd March 2016.
4. The grounds of the application are that (a) the claimants are not the custom land owners of the land comprised in the two leases the subject of this proceedings and (b) they have no registrable interest. The State relies on the evidence of Jean Marc Pierre and the Court of Appeal cases of Ratua Development Ltd v. Ndai [2007] VUCA 23 at [15-20] with particular emphasis on [ 19], and on Naru v. Kalorib & others Civil Appeal Case No. 31 of 2003.
5. Mr Laumae supports the application and seeks costs against the Claimants. Counsel alludes the Court to another proceeding currently before the Chief Justice but which has been stayed pending the determination of the Claimants claim in this proceeding.
6. I have read the sworn statement of Jean Marc Pierre. I have read the judgments of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Ratua and Naru.
7. I am not satisfied the Claimants have any evidence to show they have been declared as custom owners of the land comprised in the two leases in question. Further I am not satisfied the Claimants have any evidence to show they have any registrable interests in the land in the two leases concerned.
8. The Court of Appeal has laid down clear authorities on the matter. I therefore accept Mr Tari's submissions as supported by Mr Laumae that all these Claimants have no standing to institute their claims and this proceedings. I therefore dismiss all their claims and this proceeding in their entirety.
9. Their claims are misconceived. The application by the State is unchallenged and it is allowed.
10. The First and Second Defendants are entitled to their costs of and incidental to this proceeding against the Claimants on the standard basis as agreed or taxed by the Master.

DATED at Port Vila this 15th day of March 2016

BY THE COURT
OLIVER.A.SAKSAK
JUDGE