Riumana v Ruimana [2009] SBHC 35; HCSI-CC 288 of 2007 (31 July 2009)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 288 of 2007

BETWEEN:

SELWYN RIUMANA
Claimant

AND:

MARY ETHEL RIUMANA
Respondent

AND:

STEWARD SAFRODI
Co-Respondent

Date of Hearing: 27 February 2009, 13 March 2009, 13 July 2009
Date of Decision: 31 July 2009

Mr P Tagini for Petitioner

DECISION ON DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE

Cameron PJ:

1, The Petitioner Selwyn Riumana petitions for divorce on the grounds of adultery.

2. The parties, both Solomon Islanders, were married on 12 January 1991 at St Mary’s Church, Galatha, Hograno District, Isabel Province. They were married by a minister of religion, Rev Zephaniah Legumana.

3. The parties then lived as husband and wife for some 17 years, and have 3 children to the marriage, namely Alick, Preston and Johanson.

4. The petitioner was unable to produce a marriage certificate to the Court, which has caused the Court to seek an explanation as to the reason for this.

5. As a result, the minister who conducted the marriage ceremony, Rev. Zephaniah Legumana, filed a statement dated 3 March 2009.

6. In that document he stated that the parties did not sign a marriage certificate following the wedding ceremony because the church where the ceremony was held had no blank marriage certificate forms in stock at the time.

7. Rev. Legumana further stated that subsequently he commenced making arrangements for the parties to sign a marriage certificate in Honiara, where they lived. However, this did not eventuate as Rev. Legumana at that time was offered a post of lecturer at Bishop Patterson Theological College, Kohimarama. In other words, Rev. Legumana did not ensure that the step of completing a marriage certificate was carried out.

8. By section 7 of the Islanders’ Marriage Act, a marriage certificate is to be signed by the parties and two witnesses immediately following the marriage. The relevant part of Section 7 states:

"and immediately upon celebration, the minister of religion.....together with the witnesses and the parties shall sign in duplicate a certificate in the Form D in the First Schedule hereto, and one copy of such certificate shall be handed to one of the parties to the marriage".

9. By Section 15 of the Act, the minister is then required within a month or at the first opportunity if earlier to send the second copy of the certificate to the relevant District Registrar. The District Registrar is obliged on receiving it to enter the particulars in the ‘District Marriage Register’, and to file the certificate.

10. The issue is whether the absence of a marriage certificate renders the marriage null and void. Part 3 of the Islanders’ Divorce Act sets out the circumstances which render a marriage void. Section 12(e) provides a marriage is void if it is proved:

"(e) that subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, the marriage was not celebrated in due form".

Section 8 of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act deals with cases where a marriage is celebrated by a person not being a duly registered minister. This does not apply in this case as Rev. Leguma was duly registered.

11. It is clear from Section 12(e) that if a marriage "was not celebrated in due form" then it is void. Conversely, it follows that it is not void if celebrated in due form, provided none of the other circumstances outlined by Section 12 as rendering a marriage void apply.

12. As to whether the marriage of the parties was celebrated in due form, Rev Legumana deposes that it was. He states that the requisite notice of marriage was given, and that the marriage ceremony was conducted in the Galatha church before a large congregation and with no objection. Following the marriage, particulars were entered into a Vestry Registry by Rev. Legumana, detailing the date of the ceremony, the type of service, the names of the parties, the names of the two witnesses, the name of the minister conducting the service, and the fact that both the parties were single at the time. Rev. Legumana’s signature appears as one of the entries.

13. As to the status of a marriage certificate, and in particular whether its completion is part of the "due form" of a marriage, it is of course a document which is to be completed "immediately upon celebration" of a marriage (s.7 Islanders’ Marriage Act). As such, it is not part of the marriage celebration itself, but follows it.

14. Section 13 of the Act provides that a marriage certificate:

"....shall be admissible in any Court as evidence of the marriage to which it relates."

15. Accordingly, I find that the status of a marriage certificate is that it evidences on a prima facie basis that a marriage has taken place in due form. Its completion and filing with the District Registrar is obligatory under the Islanders’ Marriage Act, and it is an offence for a minister of religion to fail to forward a marriage certificate to the District Registrar within the specified time (Section 16). However, what is clear is that it is not part of the marriage celebration itself.

16. In the absence of a marriage certificate evidencing that the marriage took place "in due form", I have to be satisfied from other material that there was a proper celebration of the marriage. I am satisfied as to this, having read the various sworn statements together with the affirmation of Rev. Legumana, and having sighted the relevant entries as to the marriage in the Vestry Register. Accordingly, Section 12(e) of the Islanders’ Divorce Act does not apply and the marriage is a valid one. That conclusion is consistent with the understanding of both parties to the marriage and the minister who conducted the service.

17. Having read all the material filed in this Court and having heard from Mr P Tagini on behalf of the petitioner, and at an earlier stage from Mr Mane on behalf of the respondent, I am satisfied, so far as I reasonably can be, that the facts as alleged in this petition are true and that there has been no connivance or condonation on the part of the petitioner nor any collusion between the parties.

18. I now pronounce a decree of divorce on the grounds of the adultery of the respondent with the co-respondent and order that the marriage shall be dissolved upon the expiration of 3 months from this date. A formal order accompanies this decision.

19. I note that the Court has been advised that the parties have made their own arrangements in respect of their children, so no orders are necessary from the Court in that respect.

BY THE COURT