IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Sooialo v Electoral Commissioner & Ta’eu [2025] WSSC 59 (15 August 2025)

Case name: 	Sooialo v Electoral Commissioner & Ta’eu 	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 59	
		
Decision date: 	15 August 2025	
		
Parties: 	LEATINUU WAYNE SOOIALO, a registered candidate for Faleata 2 Electoral Constituency (Applicant) v ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER (First Respondent) & MUAAUFAALELE MARY FAAFOUINA TA’EU, a registered candidate for Faleata 2 Electoral Constituency (Second Respondent)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	30th, 31st July & 01st August 2025	
		
File number(s): 	2025-01181 SC/CV/UP	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court 	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Senior Justice Vui C. Nelson
Justice Leutele M. Tuatagaloa	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:		
		
Representation: 	Fuimaono S Ponifasio for the Applicant
Su’a Hellene Wallwork, F. Faanunu & Y. Tuia for First Respondent
M Lui for Second Respondent	
		
Catchwords: 	Pre-election challenge  	
		
Words and phrases:	“Challenging Electoral Commissioner’s decision to accept Second Respondent’s nomination as a candidate & eligibility to run in 2025 General Election” – “does not meet monotaga requirement” –  new electoral constituencies created. 	
		
Legislation cited:	Electoral Act 2019, ss. 8(1)(d); 8(5); 47(1); 47(3)(a); 123.	
		
Cases cited:	Stowers v Electoral Commissioner [2020] WSSC 87;
Tuuau v Electoral Commissioner [2020] WSSC 83.	
		
Summary of decision:		

2025-01181 SC/CV/UP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

IN THE MATTER OF:
an application made pursuant to section 47(3)(a)(i) of the Electoral Act 2019

BETWEEN:

LEATINUU WAYNE SOOIALO, a registered candidate for Faleata 2 Electoral Constituency

Applicant

AND:

ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER

First Respondent

AND:	

MUAAUFAALELE MARY FAAFOUINA TA’EU, a registered candidate for Faleata 2 Electoral Constituency

Second Respondent

Coram:		Senior Justice Vui C Nelson
Justice Leutele M Tuatagaloa

Counsel:	Fuimaono S Ponifasio for the Applicant
		Su’a Hellene Wallwork (Attorney General) for First Respondent
		M Lui for Second Respondent

Hearing:	30 July, 31 July and 1 August 2025
Submissions:	2 August 2025 
Judgment:	15 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Pre – Electoral Challenge)
Introduction
1. 	The Applicant, Leatinuu Wayne Sooialo (“Leatinuu”) and the Second Respondent, Muaaufaalele Mary Faafouina Ta’eu (“Muaaufaalele”) are two of the three candidates nominated for the electoral constituency of Faleata 2 in the upcoming general elections scheduled for 29th August 2025 following the close of nominations on 12th July 2025. 
2. 	Pursuant to section 8 (1)(d) and section 47(3)(a) of the Electoral Act 2019 (“the Act”), Leatinuu challenged the decision of the First Respondent, the Electoral Commissioner (“EC”) accepting the nomination of Muaaufaalele as a candidate and the eligibility of Muaaufaalele to run as a candidate in the 2025 general elections. 
The Challenge
3. 	By Notice of Motion dated the 28th July 2025 Leatinuu sought an Order disqualifying Muaaufaalele as a candidate on the ground that Muaaufaalele does not meet the requirement for rendering monotaga for “three (3) consecutive years before lodgment day” within the village of Vailoa in the Faleata 2 constituency as required by section 8 (1) (d) of the Act.            
The Responses
4. 	The EC’s decision to accept Muaaufaalele’s nomination pursuant to section 47(1) of the Act was premised on (i) all relevant documentation was completed; and (ii) the information provided to the EC by way of statutory declarations during the nomination period.
5. 	In response, Muaaufaalele was adamant she did render monotaga not only to the village but also to the EFKS Church at Vailoa. She stated at paragraph 2 of her affidavit:
	“2.	Mai le taimi sa ou nofo ai i lo’u igoa matai (2007) sa amata ai fo’i la’u tautua faa-matai i le tausi aiga, tausi nuu ma le tausi Ekalesia i Vailoa, Faleata.”  
6. 	Of great relevance to the issue of monotaga is the Electoral Constituencies Act 2019 which established ‘electoral constituencies’ changing it from the traditional ‘territorial constituencies.’ We will first address the new electoral constituencies as any impact that may have on the issue of monotaga will influence the outcome of this matter.
The Electoral Constituencies Act 2019 (“ECA 2019”)
7. 	Originally and before ECA 2019, Samoa had 41 constituencies called Territorial Constituencies under the now-repealed Constituencies Act 1963. 
8. 	The ECA 2019 and the Constitutional Amendment Act 2019 created 51 new ‘electoral constituencies’ increasing the number of parliamentary seats from 49 to 51. Faleata 2 is one of the new constituencies. These changes became legally effective on 3 March 2021 (section 2 of the ECA 2019). From that date, the electoral constituency of Faleata 2 became legally established.
9. 	It is to be noted that section 156(c) of the Electoral Act 2019 discussed and applied in Moala v Electoral Commissioner [2020] WSSC 88 was for transitional purposes to manage the transition to the new constituencies which came into effect just one month before the April 2021 general election. This section no longer applies.
Does ECA 2019 by creating new electoral constituencies affect the requirement of ‘monotaga’ under section 8 of EA 2019?
10. 	Section 8(1) (d) of the Act provides that a person is qualified to run as a candidate for elections if that person:
	“has rendered monotaga in respect of the registered matai title under paragraph (c) within a village in a constituency for which the person intends to run as a candidate for any three (3) consecutive years before lodgement day” (our emphasis).
11. 	Section 8 (5) provides the following definitions:
	“Monotaga” means the compulsory service, assistance or contribution (such as, contribution in form of cash, kind or goods) rendered for customary, traditional or religious activities, events, function or similar purposes pursuant to the customs of a particular village.”
	“Village” means a village from which a matai title was conferred, within a constituency” (again our emphasis).
12. 	Section 2 defines “constituency” to mean ‘an electoral constituency prescribed under an enactment for the purpose of Article 44(1) of the Constitution’ which provides:
	“44. Members of the Legislative Assembly – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, the Legislative Assembly shall consist of one member elected for each 51 electoral constituencies having names, and comprising of villages or sub-villages as are prescribed from time to time by Act.” (our emphasis).
13. 	Thus, it can be seen that the creation of new ‘electoral constituencies’ affects how the monotaga requirement under section 8 is applied, not by changing the requirement itself, but by changing the constituency in which it must be fulfilled. That is, it changes the context in which a monotaga is performed and assessed.
14. 	The Act referred to in Article 44 is the ECA 2019, which established new constituencies that only came into existence and were legally recognized in 2021. Therefore, when the Electoral Act 2019 refers to a ‘constituency’, it means these new ‘electoral constituencies.’ That is the “constituency for which the person intends to run as a candidate” and that is the constituency where monotaga to the village must be performed in order to comply with the terms of s. 8(1)(d). As a result, the three (3) year consecutive period for meeting the monotaga requirement only began in 2021 when the particular ‘electoral constituency’ was established. 
The Issues
15. 	This matter concerns Muaaufaalele’s eligibility to run as a candidate in the 2025 general elections. The central issue is whether she has satisfied the requirement of monotaga which is limited to the period of “any 3 consecutive years before lodgment day” being 8th July 2025. That is, the monotaga of 3 consecutive years must occur during the period 3 March 2021 (when the relevant constituency was established) to 8 July 2025 (lodgment day). We address the issue as follows: 
	15.1	What type of monotaga does Muaaufaalele claim – village/traditional and/or religious?
	15.2	Did Muaaufaalele render monotaga for three (3) consecutive years within the 3 March 2021 – 8 July 2025 period? 
16. 	The court will also examine whether the statutory declarations submitted by Muaaufaalele and the two nominating matai who confirmed her monotaga are defective, and if so, whether they are accordingly void and invalid? 
What is the monotaga claimed – religious or customary/traditional or both?	
17. 	Muaaufaalele in her affidavit says that she became a matai in 2007, but her matai title was only registered in 2010. She declared in her statutory declaration (Form 3) that she had rendered monotaga from November 2010 to 2025 in the following manner:  
	“(c)	UA FAIA la’u monotaga i totonu o 
	VAILOA FALEATA	EFKS - VAILOA TAI
	(lisi le nuu po’o nuu, e aofia ai so’o se pito-nuu ma aulotu)
	E le itiiti ifo i le 3 tausaga soso’o, mo le vaitaimi e amata mai Novema 2010 i le 2025 e tusa ai ma tu ma aga ma gaioiga faa-le-lotu a lo matou nuu, ma o lea la ua faamalieina ai aiaiga o le monotaga e pei ona faamatala e le fuaiupu (8)(5) o le Tulafono.....”
18. 	We believe the wording in paragraph (c) of her Form 3 is vague and ambiguous. It could be interpreted in two ways: either that the monotaga is only religious at the EFKS, Vailoa-tai in Vailoa, Faleata, or that both a customary/traditional monotaga in Vailoa, Faleata and a religious monotaga in EFKS, Vailoa-tai are claimed.  The latter interpretation appears in Form 3, but contradicts section 8(5), which clearly states that monotaga can be either customary/traditional or religious. The use of ‘or’ in s.8(5) means a candidate only needs to satisfy one form of monotaga, not both. 
19. 	We note that Form 3 uses the Samoan words “(lisi le nuu po’o nuu, e aofia ai so’o se pito-nuu ma aulotu)” where the word ‘ma’ (meaning ‘and’) appears instead of ‘po’o’ (meaning ‘or’). This creates confusion and, in our view, does not accurately reflect the legal requirement under section 8(5), which allows for either a customary/traditional or religious monotaga, not both. The Samoan and English versions of Form 3 need some attention in this regard to properly reflect the words of the statute.
20. 	In this matter, the proper course in our view would have been for Muaaufaalele to complete a new Form 3 claiming a customary/traditional monotaga.
21. 	We however acknowledge that under section 47(4) of the Electoral Act 2019, the Court must be “guided by the substantial merits and justice of the case without regard to legal forms or technicalities” (s.47(4)(b)). It may also admit evidence that helps resolve the case, even if such evidence would not normally be admissible (s.47(4)(c)).
22. 	We have come to the conclusion that declaring both forms of monotaga in the one Form 3 is not fatal in this case, for the following reasons:
	22.1	According to evidence for the EC by Patea Uili Sio, Muaaufaalele originally claimed religious monotaga in her statutory declaration dated 27 June 2025. However, when the EFKS Vailoa faifeau declined to confirm it, she then relied upon her customary/traditional monotaga – which she confirmed personally to the office of the EC and by her letter dated 30 June 2025 to the EC.
	22.2	The EC accepted her nomination based on the customary/traditional monotaga, supported by completed statutory declarations under section 47.  
	22.3	The Samoan version of Form 3 contains the words “ma aulotu” (“and churches”) which should have been ‘po’o aulotu’ (“or aulotu”).
	22.4	The office of the EC acknowledges this oversight.
23. 	In relation to the evidence at the hearing, Muaaufaalele testified that she only established a religious matafale under her own name in November 2022. Prior to that, the matafale was under her mother’s name. She also confirmed that she left EFKS, Vailoa in February 2025. This means she does not meet the requirement of three (3) consecutive years for religious monotaga under her own matafale. The relevant period would be November 2022 to October 2025, but her nomination was lodged on 8 July 2025 falling short of the full consecutive three years. Furthermore, she cannot rely on her support of her mother’s matafale to satisfy her religious monotaga, as the Court has previously held that service must be rendered under a matafale in the candidates own name. 
Did Muaaufaalele render customary/traditional monotaga for any three (3) consecutive years from 2021 to 2025?
24. 	For the reasons outlined in paragraphs [7] - [14] the question of whether her faiganuu in Vailoa began in 2016 is no longer relevant. Any monotaga rendered before 2021 is no longer valid for electoral purposes, as the new constituencies under ECA 2019 only became effective in March 2021.
25. 	It is not disputed that Leatinuu, Muaaufaalele and all their witnesses are related. They all descend from four (4) brothers that make up the Sa Nu’u Family which makes up most of the village of Vailoa, Faleata. Muaaufaalele originates from the eldest brother with Leatinuu from the youngest brother. A dispute in the Lands and Titles Court caused a longtime division within the family until 2016, and prior to that, the branches only gathered for family funerals and celebrations. 
26. 	Leatinuu Wayne, the current MP for Faleata 2 testified that:
•	He has been active in village affairs since 2017.
•	He saw Muaaufaalele Mary only once at a village meeting before 2021, and not at all from July 2022 to July 2025. 
•	The faiganuu of Vailoa only began in 2017 when Vailoa-uta and Vailoa-tai unified and began holding meetings together.
•	The faiganuu became formal in 2020 when pressured by the Ministry of Women (MWCSD) to hold proper village council meetings, with the election of a treasurer and secretary, and the start of lafoga (monetary contribution) and $50 registration of titleholders. 
27. 	Six (6) senior matai from Vailoa support Leatinuu’s account. They said: 
•	The faiga-nuu was formally recognized in December 2020, with elected village officers’ the treasurer and secretary (laulau) and participation of other people beyond the Sa Nu’u family.
•	The village monotaga involved lafoga and monthly meetings recorded by the village treasurer (Leatinuu Salote) and records of attendance to the village meetings were kept by the secretary (Leatinuu Sylvester) where each matai who attended would write his name down on a piece of paper.
•	Village lafoga began in 2020; all prior contributions were family –based “lafoga faa-aiga" collected during family meetings. The treasurer confirmed that Muaaufaalele only made one lafoga of $5 in February 2021.
•	Witnesses stated they had not seen Muaaufaalele at village meetings from 2021 to 2025. Leatinuu Salote recalled seeing her once in 2021. Former pulenuu Nuu Titi (2022 to June 2025) said he has never seen Muaaufaalele in any village meetings during the time he was the pulenuu; Nuu Sani who is the sa’o of Muaaufaalele Mary’s family and was the village pulenuu from 2019 to 2022 said that Muaaufaalele attended some meetings during 2016 to 2019 but from then on he never saw her at any of the village meetings to date; Records kept by the secretary do not show Muaaufaalele Mary’s name from 2021 –2025. Neither was her name registered in 2020 as a matai of Vailoa.
28. 	Muaaufaalele Mary’s evidence focuses on the period 2016 – 2020 which we have already found to be irrelevant. However, she also claimed:
•	Participation and contribution to funerals and savali a le nuu in 2022 and 2024.
•	Receipt of a voucher from the Million Dollar Project, based on her status as a matai and payment of a $50 registration fee with the village.
•	Attendance at village meetings from 2016 to 2024, including the relevant period which began from 2021.
29. 	Three (3) matai supported her claim, stating she:
•	Attended meetings and paid lafoga and registration from 2016 to 2024.
•	Participated in village events and funerals.
•	Attended meetings in three (3) consecutive years, though they could not specify months or frequency. 
30. 	Of the three (3) matai witnesses supporting Muaaufaalele’s nomination, village records show that one (Leatinuu Pulega) attended only 8 of the 27 village meetings held between October 2022 and December 2024, while another (Leatinuu Polataivao) attended just 2. It also became apparent that the sworn affidavits of Muaaufaalele and all three witnesses were nearly identical – word for word- including the same errors and amendments. As noted by Madam Attorney in her closing submissions:
	‘The substance of all 4 affidavits are identical (almost word for word including the same mistake). This suggests that the witnesses were not giving evidence independently based on their own individual experiences and knowledge’.
31. 	Additionally, there were material discrepancies between the evidence given at the hearing and the statutory declarations submitted to the Electoral Commissioner in support of Muaaufaalele’s nomination.  Under the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Act 1963 a person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years where such a person wilfully makes a false declaration (s23).
Totality of Evidence
32. 	This Court, in its role as a trial court must make its findings by carefully considering all the evidence presented. That evidence may be given orally in court, through affidavits, or both. 
33. 	The Court has had the benefit to see and hear each witness and assess their credibility through their demeanour. What the Court looks for is credible evidence – evidence it can rely on with confidence. 
34. 	The Applicant, Leatinuu Wayne has brought this challenge, it is undisputed law that he carries the burden of proving that Muaaufaalele Mary did not render monotaga for three (3) consecutive years either to the village or to EFKS Vailoa-tai before her nomination was lodged between 7 -12 July 2025. 
35. 	These challenges are pre-electoral in nature and are properly classified as civil claims. The standard of proof applicable to such claims is the balance of probabilities, consistent with civil proceedings. This was the standard applied in previous pre-electoral challenges decided upon by the Court. The Court must therefore be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the applicant’s claims are true. 
Discussions
36. 	Monotaga under section 8 refers to compulsory service and as evidenced by s.8(5), can take many forms. It must also show a pattern of regularity, meaning it is expected to be continuous, in particular over the statutory period of three (3) consecutive years. Cash contributions alone and one-off payments are not sufficient to meet these requirements.
37. 	There is a clear cultural difference between tautua to ones aiga and tautua rendered to one’s village (nuu). It is the latter that s.8(1)(d) and s.8(5) is concerned with. Contributions to funerals and family faalavelave do not fall into this category. In any event, the evidence of Muaaufaalele and her 3 matais was that during the period 2020-2025, she only contributed to 3 funerals in the year 2024.
38. 	In Stowers v Electoral Commissioner [2020] WSSC 87 the Applicant argued that contributions to family faalavelave and village projects that directly affected him constituted monotaga to his village. The Court rejected this, accepting instead the position of the sui o le nuu that such contributions did not amount to monotaga to the village. We adopt the same view and hold that monies paid or lafoga by the applicant as part of her tautua to her family or at family meetings do not constitute a monotaga to the village, which includes more than just her immediate and extended family.    
39. 	Based on the evidence presented, monotaga pursuant to the customs of the village of Vailoa, Faleata includes lafoga and attendance to village meetings. While section 8 does not explicitly require attendance at all village meetings insofar as candidates are concerned, it is a widely accepted cultural practice in this country that such participation is an essential part of matai obligations and traditional/customary service.
40. 	There is no evidence that Muaaufaalele Mary (i) made any lafoga to the village (except possibly one) during the relevant period and/or (ii) that her name appears as a registered matai or on the attendance records for village meetings from 2021 to 2024. 
41. 	The photos submitted by Muaaufaalele as evidence of her presence at so-called village meetings were taken in 2020, before the establishment of the new constituency of Faleata 2. It is also noted that in March and December of that year when she claims the photos were taken, the nation was in the grips of the Covid Pandemic and was under national lockdowns with restrictions on public gatherings and mandatory face-mask use. Yet, no masks are visible in the photos, raising questions about their authenticity and timing. Her participation in family funerals or savali a le nuu does not meet the threshold of continuous service to the village over three (3) consecutive years before lodgment day. At best, Muaaufaalele’s claimed monotaga was irregular and intermittent. Even if such evidence was accepted, we do not find it sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 8 of the Electoral Act 2019.
Conclusion	
42. 	We are satisfied to the required standard. Indeed, we are left in no doubt that the Second Respondent (Muaaufaalele Mary) does not meet the qualification requirements under section 8 of the Electoral Act 2019 whether by way of customary/traditional or religious monotaga. Accordingly, she is disqualified from running as a candidate in the 2025 general elections. The declaratory order sought by the Applicant (Leatinuu Wayne) is granted.
43. 	The decision of the First Respondent (Electoral Commissioner) to accept the nomination of the Second Respondent is hereby quashed. The Electoral Commissioner is directed to remove the name of the Second Respondent from the List of Candidates for the electoral constituency of Faleata 2 in the upcoming general election.
44. 	As the successful party, the Applicant is entitled to reasonable costs. However, in light of the relationship between the parties, no order for costs is made unless the parties request otherwise.
Additional recommendations:
45. 	In the spirit of section 123 of the Electoral Act 2019, we make the following recommendations to assist the work of the First Respondent.
46. 	The Electoral Commissioner to consider the following:
(i) 	Where appropriate, an affidavit or statutory declaration to be required from the Pulenuu or Sui-Tamaitai or Faifeau stating the reason(s) why they refuse to confirm a nominated candidate’s monotaga;
(ii) 	That the candidates Nomination Form 3 provide separately for religious and traditional/customary monotaga either by way of separate forms or separate boxes;
(iii) 	That the Samoan and English versions of Form 3 be harmonised.           

SENIOR JUSTICE VUI C. NELSON
JUSTICE LEUTELE M. TUATAGALOA