Idute'e Estate, Re [2024] SBHC 38; HCSI-CC 590 of 2021 (16 April 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Idute’e Estate, Re
Citation:
Date of decision:	16 April 2024
Parties:	Late Andrew Idute’e v Ruth Nuboa Nalangu
Date of hearing:	23 August 2023
Court file number(s):	590 of 2021
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Faukona; DCJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Order that the objection filed by Ruth Nuboa Nalangu is dismissed. 2. The applicant is the right person to apply for letters of administration, to administer his late father’s estates. 3. That the objector Ruth Nuboa Nalangu to meet the cost of this proceeding payable to Mr. Alwin Indu on standard basis.
Representation:	No On for the Applicant (Mr Fa’aitoa absent) Mr S Toito’ona for he Objector
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Island Marriage Act S 4, S 29, Legal Notice 26 of 1996, S 3,
Cases cited:	Rebitai v Chow [2001] SBHC 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 590 of 2021

BETWEEN

ESTATE OF LATE ANDREW INDUTE’E

AND:

MRS RUTH NUBOA NALANGU
Objector

Date of Hearing: 23 August 2023
Date of Decision: 16 April 2024

No one for the Applicant (Mr Fa’aitoa absent)
Mr S Toito’ona for the Objector

DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION

Faukona R (DCJ).
Introduction.

1. On or about 31^st August 2021, the late Andrew Inductee died in Honiara, intestate.
2. On 24^th February 1997, the deceased and Mrs. Louisa (mother of applicant) were legally married at SSEC Central Church. The applicant is the only surviving issue of the marriage. There is no other children of that union.
3. In or around 2006, Mrs. Lousa deserted the deceased and their only son after 10 years of living together. However, until his death, the applicant had no choice but to remain with the objector and his father (deceased) until the deceased passed away on 31^st August 2021.
4. After passing on of his father, the applicant intended to file application for the grant of letters of administration to administer the estates of his father, Andrew Idute’e who died intestate.
5. The estates of the late Idute’e comprise of the following;
   1. A harrier vehicle registered number: MB3631.
   2. A Rav 4 vehicle registered number: MC 1216.
   3. Cash saving with BSP, Account Number 160000002108
   4. Long Service Benefit (LSB) and other entitlements from S.I Government.
6. With the bold aspiration to administer his late father’s estates, he complied with processes by filling a legal notice on 24^th September 2021.
7. On 14^th October 2021 the applicant file application for orders for grant of letters of administration to administer the estates of his later father.
8. On 16^th November 2021, the objector Ruth Nuboa Nalangu wrote a letter to the applicant’s Solicitor, and the Registrar of the High Court to adjourn the hearing on 27^th November 2021.
9. That adjournment was later moved to 23^rd August 2023 which subsequently was heard. On this date the Counsel for the applicant or the applicant was not present. To give the case justice I allow the Counsel for the objector to proceed. Acknowledging the fact that there were evidence on the file to assist the Court adjudge the entire case.
10. There is no dispute the applicant is the biological son of the deceased and Louisa Talia Fakaia. There is no dispute that the marriage of the deceased and Louisa was solemnized at the Central SSEC Church. There is no dispute that, that marriage was never dissolved by order of Court through a divorce petition.
11. The objector claims that the late Andrew Idute’e was her husband, after they had married in custom in January 2009, at Martiba village, Santa Cruz.
12. The custom marriage was conducted by payment of SI$10,000.00 to the family of the objector. Many members of the objector’s family were present including relatives.
13. I noted as well that sometimes the parents of the deceased and some close relatives would come to Honiara and lived with them at Naha Heights. In 2014 the objector was nominated by the deceased as his NPF beneficiary at 100%.
14. But above all, her submissions premise on S.4 of the Islands Marriage Act which recognizes marriage celebrated in accordance with custom of islanders, as a valid marriage. She also relies on S.29 “where the deceased died intestate the person having beneficial interest in the estate shall be entitled to a grant of administration in the order of priority...”
15. Section 3 of the Legal Notice 26 of 1996, sets out order of priority in the following order; (1) Surviving spouse (2) Children of the deceased.
16. S.4 of Island Marriage Act is consistent with paragraph 3 of schedule 3 of the Constitution which states, “that customary law shall have effect as part of the law of Solomon Islands, unless the customary law in issue is not consistent with the Constitution itself or with an Act of Parliament in which case the Constitution or Act of Parliament will prevail”.
17. Quite interesting is the case of Rebitai V Chow^[1]. In that case the issue is the validity of the custom marriage between the Plaintiff and the 1^st Defendant.
18. In that case there was no prior consent by the parents for the Plaintiff to marry the 1^st Defendant. There was no married feast conducted, there was no payment of any kind at the engagement stage end there was no food to exchange for money.
19. Despite the absent of those ceremonials which will validate the parties wedlock marriage according to Arosi custom, the fact that the children spent considerable time with their Arosi relatives during holidays and have identified themselves with the Arosi Community. By the same token the Plaintiff’s relatives regards those children as part of their line blood and afford them great fondness and customary rights to properties.
20. In the Arosi context of the above case, Kabui J stated on page (10) of the judgment, second last paragraph, said, “There is no doubt that both the Plaintiff and the 1^st Defendant had agreed to live together as husband and wife as long as the marriage would last. It last for 24 years. There were children of the marriage and grand children have now come to joint the family.
21. The question whether the bride price is paid or not Kabui J has this to say, in the last paragraph of his judgment in the above case;
    • “The only difference is that in custom marriage the parents, relatives and the community are also involved in the acceptance and recognition of the marriage. In custom marriage is not meant to be invalidated for any reason because acceptance by both parties their families and relatives had sealed its validity”.
22. In the above paragraph Kabui J referred to parents, meant two parents not just one, must accept and recognize the marriage. Acceptance by both parties reiterated parents of the two parties and their families. It did not happen in this case.
23. I read the sworn statement of Steven Houalea filed on 3^rd December 2011, who deposed that he was a close friend of the deceased. At paragraph 5 of his sworn statement said that the deceased told him that he was travelling to Santa Cruz to Ruth’s home to pay bride price to her family. Unfortunately, that is hearsay evidence. The deceased cannot be called to affirm such. I do not accept such evidence.
24. I again read the sworn statement of Mr. Mathias Maebir filed on 21^st April 2022. In paragraph 3 he said, “Thus when Andrew separated from Louisa, whom he married in Church, and married Ruth in custom, his family was opposed to it”.
25. That is exactly contrary to Kabui J above quoted statement that parents, relatives and community must involve. This means there must not be a one-sided involvement and acceptance. In this case no one from deceased side attended and involved, neither his parents nor member of his family or relatives. Only the deceased standalone attended a ceremony at Martiba village, Santa Cruz.
26. I noted in the second sworn statement of the objector filed on 21^st April 2022 in collaborated with the sworn statement of Gilbert Laura filed on 3^rd December 2021 that the uncle of the deceased Mr. Thomas negotiated the marriage with the objector’s mum and uncle on the issue of marriage.
27. I also noted that the parents of the deceased came to Honiara and lived with the deceased and the objector because the father was sick and purposely to seek medical treatment in Honiara.
28. Comparatively, it would now appear that both customary marriage and legal marriage perceived as persisted at the death of the deceased. If so, which marriage prevail? Paragraph 3 and schedule 3 of the Constitution simply amplified where customary law is in conflict with the Constitution or an Act of Parliament the Constitution or Act of Parliament must prevail.
29. There is argument that the initial and legal wife of the deceased was estranged but that has not affected their legal marriage, because there was no divorce done and no order of Court nullifying the marriage in absolute condition.
30. The fact that the legal wife was somewhere or living with another man does no nullify the marriage, it was still persisted until the death of the deceased.
31. The fact that she did not apply as a wife is immaterial. In her letter dated 4^th October 2021, she appointed her son as a next of kin to administer the estates of his late father. That, in my view is proper for all purposes including applying for letters of administration.
32. With the above narratives and reasons, I therefore dismiss the objection filed by Ruth Nuboa Nalangu and approved the application filed by Alwin Indu for letters of administration to administer his late father’s estate.

Orders:

1. Order that the objection filed by Ruth Nuboa Nalangu is dismissed.
2. The applicant is the right person to apply for letters of administration, to administer his late father’s estates.
3. That the objector Ruth Nuboa Nalangu to meet the cost of this proceeding payable to Mr. Alwin Indu on standard basis.

The Court.
REX FAUKONA
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE.

---

^[1] [2001] SBHC 85; HC-CC 108 of 1998 (27 November 2001).