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

Tevagaena v Iiga [2025] WSSC 99 (22 October 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Tevagaena v Iiga [2025] WSSC 99 (22 October 2025)

2025- 01232/SC/CV/UP

THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

In the matter: of the Electoral Act 2019 and in the matter: of an Application to withdraw the Petition and Counter Petition.

BETWEEN:

PESETA VAIFOU TEVAGAENA,
Candidate for the Constituency of Fa’asalelega 5.

Petitioner

AND:

VUI IIGA SIONE IIGA,
Candidate for the Constituency of Fa’asaleleaga 5.

Respondent

Counsels: S. Ainuu for the Petitioner

M. Lui for the Respondent

Ruling: 22 October 2025

RULING OF THE COURT

1. The applications before the Court include an application by the Petitioner to withdraw the petition, and an application by the Respondent to withdraw the counter petition.

Background of proceedings

2. Following the General Elections on 29 August 2025, the result of the polls for the electoral constituency of Fa’asaleleaga 5 were as follows:

PESETA Vaifou Tevagaena 388

VUI IIGA Sione Iiga 468

3. On 5 October 2025, pursuant to a Warrant of Election, the Respondent was officially declared the Member of Parliament for the electoral constituency of Fa’asaleleaga 5.
4. On 19 September 2025, the Petitioner filed an election petition against the Respondent, alleging bribery and seeking to have the election results declared void. On the same day, an application to admit video evidence was also submitted. The petition was subsequently published in the Samoa Observer on Friday, 26 September 2025.
5. On 26 September 2025, the Respondent filed a response to the petition as well as a counter petition. The counter petition was advertised in the Samoa Observer on Tuesday, 30 September 2025.
6. The Court scheduled a preliminary mention for 8 October 2025 to address the applications before it and determine the procedural course. However, during mention, the Court was informed that both parties were in discussions regarding the withdrawal of their respective petitions.
7. On Saturday 11 October 2025, the Respondent published and advertised in the Samoa Observer his intention to withdraw the counter petition.
8. On Tuesday 14 October 2025, the Petitioner published and advertised in the Samoa Observer his intention to withdraw the petition and also filed with the Court a Notice of Intention to seek leave to withdraw the petition. The Respondent also filed a Notice of Motion for leave to withdraw the counter petition the same morning.
9. Later in the day when the matter was called before the Court, the proceedings were adjourned to allow the statutory advertisement period to lapse and to enable the Court to consider the applications for withdrawal.

Application to withdraw a Petition

10. Section 131 of the Electoral Act 2019 requires leave of the Court to withdraw a petition. Such leave may only be granted after the prescribed notice of intention has been given to the constituency to which the petition relates.
11. Rule 42 of the Election Petition Rules 1964 mandates that the intention to withdraw a petition must be published at least one week prior to the application to withdraw, setting out the grounds for the withdrawal.
12. The principal ground cited by both the Petitioner and Respondent for withdrawing their respective petitions is the desire to promote peace and harmony among the villages within the constituency. Proceeding with the petitions would undermine this objective.

Ruling

13. After careful review and consideration of both applications for leave to withdraw, the Court accepts the grounds advanced by the parties. The Court has considered the affidavits filed in support of the applications and agree that it will be in the best interest of maintaining peace and harmony between the villages of the constituency of Fa’asaleleaga 5 if the petitions are withdrawn.
14. For the purposes of section 133 of the Electoral Act 2019, the Court is also of the opinion that the withdrawal of the petition and counter petition was not the result of a corrupt arrangement or in consideration of the withdrawal of any other election petition. A separate report confirming this will be submitted to the Speaker as required.
15. As previously indicated to Counsel, the Court has determined that Court costs shall be ordered against both parties. Costs to be ordered will reflect the following:
    • (i) While the petitions have now been withdrawn and the allegations remain untested, the Court was put on notice as to the seriousness of the claims made under oath about conduct leading up to the elections;
    • (ii) The Court has vacated its regular schedule to prioritize these petitions, disrupting other proceedings and requiring significant logistical coordination; and
    • (iii) The Court has already committed significant time and resources in preparation for these matters.

Orders

16. We therefore make the following orders:
    • (i) The Petition filed by the Petitioner is withdrawn by leave and dismissed in its entirety;
    • (ii) The Counter Petition filed by the Respondent is withdrawn by leave and dismissed in its entirety; and
    • (iii) Costs in the amount of $1,500 each to be paid by the Petitioner and the Respondent to the Court respectively.
      

JUSTICE LEUTELE M. TUATAGALOA
JUSTICE LOAU D. KERSLAKE