Estate of Christian Sale and James Loti, In re [2016] SBHC 159; HCSI-CC 460 of 2013 (29 September 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Faukona PJ)

Civil Case No. 460 of 2013

IN THE MATTER of the Estate of Christian Sale and James Loti who died intestate,

AND:

IN THE MATTER of Section 32 of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act.

AND:

IN THE MATTER of the Application by Ian Paholo, David Loti and Florence Dovu for a joint administration of the estate of Christian Sale and James Loti who died intestate.

AND IN THE MATTER of Cross-application by Jacob Lee Siosi, John Maseka, Kevin George and Charles Meke for a grant of letters of administration of the estate of the said persons.

Date of Hearing: 29^th September 2016
Date of Decision: 29^th September 2016

Mr S. Balea for the Applicants
Mr B. Etomea for the Objectors

DECISION

Faukona PJ: On 1^st July 1918, Mr Nicholas Seka, on behalf of his clan, leased a plot of land, PN 169-004-001 to Edith Harriet Gaskell for 99 years. Later the land was transferred to the Children of Edith Gaskell namely William Gaskell and Richard Luke Gaskell.

2.	On 17th June 1996 the Gaskells who were living in Sydney had agreed to return the land to the original landowners. There was somehow a kind of agreement which cannot be ascertain because there was no written agreement for transfer, but there were purported transfer instruments executed by the parties on 25th and 26th September 1995. There was no land transfer physically occurred because of the death of Mr Christina Sale.
3.	Upon the death of the Mr Sale, the Applicants filed this case for an order for letters of administration to administer the estate of the late Christian Sale.
4.	I have no doubt that one of the Applicant Mr Ian Paholo was related to Nicholas Seka, the original lessor, and through cultural right of inheritance by way of matrilineal descendant, hence derives rights.
5.	I also noted the minutes of a meeting held by the Clan members on 18th April 2013 who had appointed three trustee, the Applicants to facilitate the transfer of the land to them
6.	Despite that background, I agree with Mr Etomea since no title was ever transferred to Mr Christian Sale, therefore owned nothing until his death. The application for letters of administration by the Applicant cannot be possible because of that fact.
7.	Hence, who has the better right to apply for letters of administration? The Objectors say they are based on a Chiefs decision on 15th October 1974, which was in favour of Mr Siosi and Mr Soso who were related to Mr Jacob Lee.
8.	The problem with the Chiefs decision is that it cannot change the owners and ownership trustee of a registered land. It may offer a perception as to the purported landowners. But cannot change the trustees who had been registered as lessors of the estate.
9.	With that I cannot see the Objectors have better rights to seek orders for letters of administration. I must dismiss their cross- claim. They do not provided better option in custom. For the current purpose the Applicants have better rights.
10.	Whilst the Applicants have initiated some process to have the land transfer, I think their approach was wrong. In fact, they jumped the conclusion too early. What ought to have been done according to law, firstly names of trustees must be provided to replace the deceased trustee. There are procedures in place. Then apply for letters of administration to administer the estate. What the Applicants had done had created a vacuum. There was no title yet transferred to Christian Sale, so that letters of administration could be granted to administer his estate. The purported transfer documents signed were not executed. Subsequently Mr Sale died hence, no title passed on to him. Perhaps the Applicants need to consult with Department of Lands for rightful processes.
	Orders:
1.	Applicants are allowed to go through the process of replacement of trustee first, and be registered, and then apply to carry out the administration of the estate.
2.	Dismiss the cross application filed by the objectors.
3.	Cost in the cause.
	The Court.