IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Sooialo v Electoral Commissioner & Betham [2025] WSSC 60 (15 August 2025)

Case name: 	Sooialo v Electoral Commissioner & Betham	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 60	
		
Decision date: 	15 August 2025	
		
Parties: 	LEATINUU WAYNE SOOIALO (Applicant) v ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER (First Respondent) & ULUGIA ELON PILIOPO BETHAM (Second Respondent)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	7th, 8th & 12th August 2025	
		
File number(s): 	2025-01183	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CIVIL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Leutele M. Tuatagaloa
Justice Loau D. Kerslake	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	We are satisfied, to the required standard, that Ulugia Elon does not meet the qualification requirements under section 8 of the Electoral Act 2019 in respect of the provision of customary/traditional monotaga. He is therefore disqualified from standing as a candidate in the 2025 General Elections. 

The Order sought by the Applicant is granted.

The decision of the Electoral Commissioner to accept the nomination of Ulugia Elon is hereby quashed. 

The Electoral Commissioner is directed to remove the name of the Second Respondent, Ulugia Elon from the List of Nominees for the electoral constituency of Faleata 2.

Costs follow the event.  The Second Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant $2,000.00 towards his costs.	
		
Representation: 	S Ponifasio for the Applicant
V. Leilua and E. Soloi for the First Respondent
M. Lemisio and F. Ainuu for the Second Respondent	
		
Catchwords: 	Pre-election challenge - 	
		
Words and phrases:	“Challenging decision of the Electoral Commissioner accepting nomination of a candidate” – “Challenging eligibility of a person to run as a candidate in General Elections” – “does not meet rendering monotaga requirement”. 	
		
Legislation cited:	Constituencies Act 1963 (repealed) s. 2;
Constitution of the Independent State of Samoa 1960, Art 44(1);
Electoral Act 2019, ss. 2; 8; 8(1)(d); 8(5); 47(1); 47(3)(a); 47(4)(a); 47(4)(b); 47(5); 156; 156(1)(c); 156(2)(b); 
Electoral Constituencies Act 2019, s. 2(1).	
		
Cases cited:	Crichton v Electoral Commissioner [2021] WSSC 56;
Lisati v Electoral Commissioner [2020] WSSC 76;
Moala v Electoral Commissioner [2020] WSSC 88;
Stowers v Electoral Commissioner [2020] WSSC 877;
Tu’uau v Electoral Commissioner & Anor [2020] WSSC 83.	
		
Summary of decision:		

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:

ULUGIA ELON PILIOPO BETHAM a registered candidate for Faleata 2 Electoral Constituency

Second Respondent
    
Coram:		Justice Leutele M. Tuatagaloa
		Justice Loau D. Kerslake

Counsel:	S Ponifasio for the Applicant
		V. Leilua and E. Soloi for the First Respondent
		M. Lemisio and F. Ainuu for the Second Respondent

Hearing:	 7 August 2025, 8 August 2025 & 12 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, Ulugia Elon Piliopo Betham (“Ulugia Elon”) are two of three candidates nominated for the electoral constituency of Faleata 2 in the upcoming general elections scheduled for 29 August 2025 following the close of nominations on 12 July 2025. 
2. 	Pursuant to section 8 (1)(d) and section 47(3)(a) of the Electoral Act 2019 (“the EA 2019”), Leatinuu is challenging:
(i) 	the decision of the First Respondent, the Electoral Commissioner (“EC”) accepting the nomination of Ulugia Elon as a candidate; and
(ii) 	the eligibility of Ulugia Elon to run as a candidate in the 2025 general elections. 
The Challenge
3. 	By Notice of Motion dated 28 July 2025 with supporting affidavits, Leatinuu is seeking an Order disqualifying Ulugia Elon as a candidate on the ground that Ulugia Elon does not meet the requirement for rendering monotaga for “three (3) consecutive years before lodgment day” within the village of Vaiusu in the Faleata 2 constituency.  
4. 	These challenges are pre-electoral in nature and are properly classified as civil claims. The standard of proof applicable is the balance of probabilities.  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.  The burden of proof lies with the applicant as he brought these proceedings.    
The Responses
5. 	The EC ‘s decision to accept Ulugia’s nomination pursuant to section 47(1) of the EA 2019 was premised on the completion and submission of all relevant documentation in accordance with section 8 and 47(1) of the EA 2019.  Hence, the EC was satisfied that Ulugia Elon met the qualifications to run as a candidate and was obliged to accept the nomination.   
6. 	In response, Ulugia Elon objects to the application and argues that he has rendered monotaga for his matai title Ulugia to the village of Vaiusu for the relevant period from 2016 to 2025 through his Fuaifale - Aitilotilo.
Preliminary Issue
7. 	Before addressing the main challenge, we first ruled on a preliminary issue regarding the Electoral Constituencies Act 2019 (“ECA 2019”) and the requirement under section 8 of the EA 2019 for candidates to render monotaga.
8. 	On 7 August 2025, after hearing submissions from both parties, we delivered our oral ruling. We commend counsel for their thoughtful arguments, especially given the limited preparation time.
9. 	Our ruling was based on article 44 of the Constitution of the Independent State of Samoa 1960 and the relevant provisions of the EA 2019. We held that a candidate must render monotaga in relation to their matai title from a village located within the newly established constituency—here, Faleata 2—created under the ECA 2019. Since Faleata 2 was only constituted on 3 March 2021, monotaga could only be assessed from that date onward. The full reasoning follows.
Impact of the Electoral Constituencies Act 2019 (“the ECA 2019”) on monotaga rendered by a candidate pursuant to section 8 of the EA 2019. 
10. 	The central issue was whether the creation of new constituencies—such as Faleata 2 under the ECA 2019—affected how monotaga must be rendered under section 8 of the EA 2019.
11. 	Ms. Ponifasio, representing Leatinuu, argued that the ECA 2019 replaced the old territorial constituencies with new ones. Since the Act came into force on 3 March 2021, any monotaga rendered by a candidate “within a village in the constituency,” as stated in section 8, could only be counted from that date. Counsel for the Electoral Commissioner agreed with this interpretation.
12. 	In contrast, Mr. Lemisio contended that section 8 of the EA 2019 primarily requires monotaga to be rendered through a matai title linked to a specific village. He argued that the village’s placement within a constituency is secondary, as constituency boundaries can change. Therefore, Parliament did not intend for monotaga to be tied to a constituency—only to the village itself.
The Legal Framework
(a)	The EA 2019
13. 	Section 8(1) (d) of the EA 2019 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).
14. 	Section 8 (5) of the EA 2019 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).”
15. 	Section 2 of the EA 2019 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).
(b)	The ECA 2019
16. 	The Electoral Constituencies Act 2019 and the Constitutional Amendment Act 2019 introduced new ‘electoral constituencies’, replacing the former ‘territorial constituencies’ established under the now-repealed Constituencies Act 1963.  These reforms increased the number of constituencies from 41 to 51, and correspondingly raised the number of parliamentary seats from 49 to 51.  In our view, this marked a significant shift in Samoa’s electoral landscape. Section 2(1) of ECA 2019 provides:
	“2.	Prescribing Electoral Constituencies:
	For the purpose of Article 44(1) of the Constitution, the 51 Electoral Constituencies for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly are named in the schedule.”
17. 	Faleata 2 was legally inaugurated on 3 March 2021 as one of the new constituencies.
18. 	The shifting boundaries of constituencies challenge the static nature of cultural services, affecting monotaga in terms of electoral eligibility. That is, monotaga is culturally rendered to the village, but legally it must be within the constituency.
19. 	While monotaga is traditionally understood as service to one’s village in line with the principle of tautua, the role of a Member of Parliament extends beyond village representation to representing and serving the entire constituency. Therefore, a contextual interpretation of monotaga is necessary. If Parliament intended that monotaga be fulfilled by a candidate in a village within the relevant constituency, then that interpretation should prevail. The candidate retains discretion to choose the specific village within the constituency where they will render their service.
20. 	Section 156 of EA 2019 played a crucial role in facilitating the transition to newly established constituencies for the 2021 general elections. Specifically, section 156(1)(c) allowed candidates to rely on monotaga previously rendered in their former territorial constituencies to satisfy the eligibility requirements under section 8—provided that the former and new constituencies corresponded, as outlined in the schedule annexed to the Act. For example, a candidate contesting the April 2021 elections in Faleata 2 (listed in Column 2) could rely on monotaga performed in a village within the former territorial constituency of Faleata Sisifo (listed in Column 1).
21. 	The transitional allowance under section 156(1)(c) of EA 2019 was explicitly limited to the 2021 general elections. As stipulated in section 156(2)(b), candidates can no longer rely on monotaga performed in villages that were part of former territorial constituencies. This restriction underscores the temporal nature of the transitional provision and reinforces the requirement that monotaga must now be rendered within the boundaries of the newly established electoral constituencies.
22. 	The Court’s function in interpreting legislation is to give primacy to the actual words used. It must adhere strictly to the clear and unequivocal language of the statute, without extending its meaning beyond what is expressly stated. This principle was affirmed in Moala v Electoral Commissioner [2020] WSSC 88 (11 December 2020), where the Court underscored that interpretation must be grounded in the statutory text:
	“When interpreting Acts of Parliaments, section 7 of the Acts Interpretation Act requires the intention of Parliament to be derived from those matters listed in section 7(3).  The first of those requirements is section 7(3)(a) “the plain meaning of ordinary words”.  If the intent of parliament can thus be derived, in our view that is the end of the matter. …”    
23. 	Applying this principle to sections 8(1)(d) and 8(5) of the Electoral Act 2019, the requirement that a candidate must have rendered monotaga to “a title from a village within a constituency” must be understood in the context of the newly established Faleata 2 electoral constituency. For clarity, only monotaga performed in a village within Faleata 2 as of 3 March 2021 shall be considered. Since section 156(1) of the Act applied exclusively to the 2021 general elections, any monotaga previously rendered in a village that was part of the former territorial constituency of Faleata Sisifo is excluded from consideration.
24. 	As a consequence of the statutory framework and the establishment of Faleata 2, the three-year consecutive period required under section 8(1)(d) of EA 2019 can only begin on 3 March 2021. This date marks the legal recognition of the new constituency boundaries, and therefore any monotaga rendered prior to this date—particularly in villages formerly part of Faleata Sisifo —falls outside the scope of eligibility. The Court’s interpretation ensures consistency with the statutory language and preserves the integrity of the electoral process by aligning eligibility with the actual constituency structure in force.
25. 	We turn now to consider the substantive issue under the challenge by the Applicant.
The Substantive Issue
26. 	The central question is whether Ulugia Elon satisfies the monotaga requirement, which mandates service for “any 3 consecutive years before lodgment day.” Based on the statutory interpretation and constituency context outlined above, the relevant period must fall between 3 March 2021—the date Faleata No. 2 was legally established—and 7 July 2025, the lodgment day. Only monotaga rendered within this timeframe and within villages that form part of Faleata 2 may be considered for eligibility under section 8(1)(d) of EA 2019.
27. 	According to the documents and statutory declaration submitted by the EC in Exhibit EC.1, Ulugia Elon claims to have rendered monotaga of a customary and traditional nature to the village of Vaiusu, in accordance with its established customs.
Applicable Law
28. 	The applicable legal framework is set out in sections 8(1)(d), 8(5), and 47 of EA 2019. As previously canvassed, section 8(1)(d) requires a candidate to have rendered monotaga in accordance with village custom, while section 8(5) clarifies that such service must be within the constituency and during the prescribed period. 
29. 	The application to disqualify Ulugia Elon is grounded in section 47(3), which renders the Court’s decision final and not subject to review or appeal. Under section 47(4)(a), the Court must determine whether the candidate is qualified under article 45 of the Constitution and section 8 of the EA 2019. Importantly, section 47(4)(b) directs the Court to be guided by the “substantial merits and justice of the case without regard to legal forms and technicalities”, avoiding legal formalism in favor of a culturally and contextually grounded assessment.
The Evidence
30. 	Leatinuu testified in support of his challenge and called two additional witnesses - Ulugia Eteuati and Aitilotilo Henry Talivaa Crawley to support his contention that Ulugia Elon did not satisfy the monotaga requirement pursuant to section 8 of the EA 2019.  Their testimonies were presented to contest the validity, timing, or substance of the monotaga claimed by Ulugia Elon, and form part of the evidentiary record the Court must assess in determining eligibility.
31. 	In response, Ulugia Elon testified in support of his eligibility and relied on the evidence of Ulugia Mata’u Matafeo Siatiu, Ulugia Ielome Mulumulu, and Ulugia Malia Ausage Manua. Their testimonies were offered to affirm that Ulugia Elon had rendered monotaga in accordance with village custom and within the timeframe required under section 8 of EA 2019.
32. 	Mulitalo Fetogi Rosita Vaai for the EC tendered the documents submitted by Ulugia Elon in support of his nomination. These documents formed the basis of the Commissioner’s decision to accept his candidacy. Mulitalo confirmed that the monotaga relied upon by Ulugia Elon was traditional or customary service rendered to the village of Vaiusu, as declared in his nomination form.
The customs of the Village of Vaiusu.
33. 	The evidence reveals the following: 
(i) 	The village of Vaiusu consist of two main families: Sa Ulugiā and Sa Seiuli, which are further divided into five fua’ifale or family lineage lines. Four of these are associated with the title Ulugia and one to the title Seiuli.
(ii) 	The four fua’ifale associated to the title Ulugia consist of the fuaifale of Samate, Maluseu, Aitilotilo and Taualai.
(iii) 	The monotaga to the village is through the fua’ifale presented to the village by the most senior matai (fa’aaloaloga).
(iv) 	Ulugia Elon is from the Sa Ulugiā family from the fua’ifale of Aitilotilo from the Talasiko faletama.
(v) 	No one fua’ifale is the same and is independent and unique in its own decision-making process.
34. 	Since each fua’ifale is unique and operates independently, it’s essential to understand how each one functions and who belongs to which fua’ifale, itu-aiga, and faletama—especially when considering monotaga obligations.
Fuaifale of Aitilotilo
35. 	According to the evidence, Ulugia Elon, Aitolitilo Henry, Ulugia Ielome and Ulugia Malia are from the fuaifale of Aitilotilo. However, Aitilotilo Henry and Malia also belong to the fua’ifale of Taualai where they both hold the title Ulugia. Ulugia Eteuati is from the fua’ifale of Maluseu whilst Ulugia Mata’u is from the fua’ifale of Samate. 
36. 	Each fua’ifale is further divided into ‘itu-aiga’ or sub family lines with the possibility of each itu aiga being further divided on the basis of ‘faletama’ attributed to your genealogy in each fua’ifale.  It became evident that the witnesses had a different understanding or knowledge of the names of the itu- aiga within the fuaifale of Aitilotilo.  
37. 	Aitilotilo Henry outlined the itu-aiga under Aitilotilo as Talasiko, Uoka and Vaimaile.  Ulugia Elon agreed to this.  However, both Ulugia Ielome and Ulugia Malia listed the itu-aiga as Maomai, Uoka and Vaimaile but differ as to the itu-aiga Talasiko comes from. Ulugia Ielome said Talasiko faletama is from Maomai while Ulugia Malia said that Talasiko is from Vaimaile. 
38. 	In any event, Aitilotilo Henry, Ulugia Elon and Ulugia Malia confirmed that they descended from the faletama of Talasiko.  Ulugia Ielome confirmed descending from the faletama of Mulu.  This means that Ulugia Ielome would not know what goes on within the Talisiko faletama. 
Did Ulugia Elon render customary/traditional monotaga for any three (3) consecutive years from 3 March 2021 to 7 July 2025?
39. 	According to the evidence, the types of monotaga rendered to the village of Vaisusu include:
(i) 	Tausiga mo le fono o le nuu – the provision of meals (food and drinks) for each monthly village council meeting. Prior to August 2024, each fua’ifale took turns hosting the meetings and financing the meals. After August 2024, this responsibility was assigned to the aumaga or the untitled men of the village.
(ii) 	Payment of legal fees for an ongoing court matter involving land belonging to the village;
(iii) 	Payment of surveying fees to survey 100 acres of land at Tapatapaō received by the village from Government;
(iv) 	Attending and participating in the village fono;
(v) 	Usu o le Nuu – attending special traditional events such as tapaga ipu and saofai, (seeking prior blessings for a matai title and bestowment of the matai title; and
(vi) 	Participating in the welcoming ceremony for the parish priest or deacon for the Catholic church, the only church in the village.
40. 	There was a difference between service (‘tautua’) by matai in respect of family obligations within the fua’ifale and monotaga to the village presented by the fa’aaloaloga of the fua’ifale. There was no monotaga faa-le-matai rendered directly to the village or enforced by the village. 
41. 	It was Ulugia Elon’s evidence that he never attended a village council meeting after the 2021 general elections until May 2025. He also confirmed not participating in any usu o le nuu for any traditional village event (tapaga ipu or Saofai) during this same period.
42. 	Aitilotilo Henry confirmed never seeing Ulugia Elon attend meetings of the Aitilotilo Fua’ifale as well as family meetings for the Talasiko faletama. He testified that he was not personally aware of any financial contribution made by Ulugia Elon which went towards monotaga for the Aitilotilo fua’ifale to the village.
43. 	Ulugia Ielome confirmed the monotaga provided by Ulugia Elon despite the fact that he is from a different faletama from Ulugia Elon. It was the evidence before the court that a person in one fua’ifale did not have personal knowledge of the contributions of another person in another fua’ifale. The same principle applied in relation to faletama within the fua’ifale. Any evidence then from Ulugia Ielome regarding any contribution and attendance of Ulugia Elon in the Talisiko faletama is questionable. The same goes with Ulugia Eteuati and Ulugia Mata’u who are also from different fua’ifale from Ulugia Elon.
44. 	Reference was also made to the statutory declarations of Ulugia Sefo Maligi and Mafuaina Ioane Stowers who confirmed the candidacy nomination of the Second Respondent. However, Ulugia Malia in evidence said that Sefo Maligi is descendant from the faletama of Aiga Sefo and not Talasiko. There was no evidence presented suggesting that Mafuaina Ioane Stowers was descendant from Aitilotilo or Talasiko. Regrettably, the statutory declarations raise more questions than answers as to whether Ulugia Sefo Maligi and Mafuaina would actually know if Ulugia Elon was rendering monotaga through his faletama and fua’ifale.
45. 	In accordance with the evidence, the monotaga which Ulugia Elon allegedly participated and/or contributed towards within the relevant period included:
(i) 	the one payment of $1,000 tala made sometime in 2023 which went towards legal fees as part of the $3,000.00 tala contribution of Aitilotilo. 
(ii) 	The tausiga or provision of meals for the village council meeting when it was fuaifale of Aitilotilo’s turn to host. At best, the Aitolotilo fuaifale would have hosted the village council meetings perhaps twice in 2021, three times in 2022 and 2023, and once in 2024 before the responsibility to provide meals was assigned to the aumaga;
(iii) 	$100.00 monthly from August 2024 to July 2005, which was given to the Aumaga of Aitilotilo’s fua’ifale as part of their contribution to the preparation of meals (tausiga) for the village council meetings;
(iv) 	Village council meetings for the months of May, June and July 2025.
46. 	We do not accept that the $100.00 tala provided by Ulugia Elon to the aumaga constituted compulsory monotaga. Based on the evidence of Ulugia Ielome, this contribution was made upon request and not pursuant to any directive from the village council. The responsibility for the tausiga—the provision of meals during monthly village council meetings—had already been formally assigned to the aumaga as part of their tautua or service to the village. Ulugia Elon is not part of the aumaga. Any financial or other support offered by Ulugia Elon toward these responsibilities was therefore voluntary in nature and cannot be classified as compulsory monotaga under section 8 of the Electoral Act 2019.
47. 	We are also not satisfied on the evidence that Ulugia Elon contributed to the meals or tausiga when the Aitolotilo fua’ifale hosted the village council meeting during the relevant years specified above.  Only general statements were made by Ulugia Elon, Ulugia Ielome and Ulugia Maria that he contributed.  None of the witnesses were able to specify how much he gave and when this occurred.  Records were not kept within the Aitilotilo fua’ifale outlining the individual matai who assisted in the monotaga presented to the village.
48. 	Therefore, the only payment which can be claimed as compulsory monotaga which Ulugia Elon gave as part of his obligation to the village of Vaiusu was the $1,000.00 tala in 2023 for payment of legal fees.
Discussions
49. 	Under section 8(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 2019, the Court can only assess Ulugia Elon’s contributions made between 3 March 2021 and 7 July 2025 to determine if they meet the criteria for compulsory monotaga, based on Vaiusu village customs. To qualify, the contributions must span any three consecutive years within that timeframe. 
50. 	In Crichton v Electoral Commissioner [2021], the Court clarified that monotaga refers to compulsory service rendered under one’s own matai title, not through another’s. This service is a prerequisite for those seeking to represent their village in Parliament.
51. 	Ulugia Elon admits he only began attending Vaiusu village council meetings in May 2025, with follow-up attendance in June and July. He did not participate in key village events such as the saofai or tapaga ipu by the Sa Seiuli and Sa Ulugia families in 2022–2025. His attendance at fuaifale meetings was occasional and limited to his Talasiko faletama, with no evidence of participation in the Aitilotilo fua’ifale.
52. 	Although he made financial contributions toward legal fees and village meeting expenses, these were sporadic and insufficient to meet the monotaga threshold. As Ms Ponifasio aptly described, his contributions were “sporadic and separated by long periods of time.”
53. 	In Crichton v Electoral Commissioner (supra), the Court emphasized that it would require substantial persuasion to accept that payments which were “intermittent and irregular” could satisfy the requirement of compulsory service. While Crichton specifically addressed religious monotaga, the underlying principle applies equally to traditional or customary monetary contributions made to the village.
54. 	This reinforces the position that sporadic financial support—without consistent and active participation in village life—does not meet the threshold of monotaga under sections 8(1)(d) and 5 of the Electoral Act 2019.
55. 	It is our view that financial contribution alone is insufficient to satisfy the monotaga requirement under sections 8(1)(d) and 5 of the Electoral Act 2019. Regular and meaningful attendance at village council meetings and participation in traditional events are essential components of monotaga, as understood within the customs of Vaiusu village.  
56. 	Between 3 March 2021 and 7 July 2025, Ulugia Elon’s engagement fell well short of this threshold. His attendance was limited to three village council meetings in 2025, and he did not participate in any significant village events during the preceding years. His financial contributions, while noted, were sporadic and separated by long periods of absence. Taken together, these efforts do not constitute monotaga rendered over three consecutive years. Ulugia Elon was nowhere near meeting the statutory and customary requirements.
57. 	We agree with the Applicant that the monotaga relied upon by Ulugia Elon does not satisfy the statutory threshold under section 8 of the Electoral Act 2019. His limited attendance at village council meetings, absence from key communal events, and sporadic financial contributions fall short of the compulsory service required by law and custom. Accordingly, his claim to have rendered monotaga over three consecutive years cannot be sustained. 
Conclusion	
58. 	We are satisfied, to the required standard, that Ulugia Elon does not meet the qualification requirements under section 8 of the Electoral Act 2019 in respect of the provision of customary/traditional monotaga. He is therefore disqualified from standing as a candidate in the 2025 General Elections. 
59. 	The Order sought by the Applicant is granted.
60. 	The decision of the Electoral Commissioner to accept the nomination of Ulugia Elon is hereby quashed. 
61. 	The Electoral Commissioner is directed to remove the name of the Second Respondent, Ulugia Elon from the List of Nominees for the electoral constituency of Faleata 2.
62. 	Costs follow the event.  The Second Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant $2,000.00 towards his costs. 

JUSTICE LEUTELE M TUATAGALOA
JUSTICE LOAU D. KERSLAKE