Suku v Taraharu - re Kaokaoraana Claimed Land [2013] SBLC 2 (18 April 2013)

SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE MAKIRA LOCAL COURT

KAOKAORAANA CLAIMED LAND

HEARING: 2/04/13 - 12/04/13
JUDGMENT: 18/04/13

JUDGMENT

Kaokaoraana claimed land was lodged to court by plaintiff Ben Tarauru Suku against Defendant Walter Taraharu represented by Davis Filoisi in this court. Plaintiff claimed that Kaokaoraana claimed land is not a separate land from Mawari.

In 1996 this disputed land is referred to as Mawari land and was settled by the Bauro Council of Chiefs where Ben Tarauru Suku is awarded Primary Right and Walter as the secondary Right owner.

Again in 2008 Walter Taraharu did claimed Mawari land as Kaokaoraana and was again settled by Bauro Council of Chiefs .In which primary Rights was again awarded to Ben Tarauru Suku and Walter was given the Secondary right again.

This dispute was lodge to the court by Walter Taraharu against Ben Tarauru, where in 2011 an agreement was made between plaintiff Walter Taraharu represented by his daughter Daisy Filoisi and Ben Tarauru Suku that Mawari land be put to rest and in breached of the agreement the matter be referred to the local court for full hearing.

The court will now determine Kaokaoraana claimed land as claimed by plaintiff Ben Tarauru Suku.

The claim was put in court to defendant Davis Filoisi, who claimed that Kaokaoraana is a separate land from Mawari been separated at Rapei Stream further North inland as indicated in defendants map "B2" Ex D7. And not a whole land as indicated by Plaintiff.

Kaokaoraana claimed land boundary is from Aumera South East to Maniragia River North East to Aupare North west and down to Aupare West. This is the true boundary of Kaokaoraana claimed land confirmed by the Court.

Plaintiff has to prove beyond reasonable doubts that Kaokaoraana claimed land is not a separate land from Mawari but one whole land.

According to History statement produced in court by plaintiff and defendant, court proves that defendant entered into Kaokaoraana claimed land at Hunihara just along the coast. If Kaokaoraana claimed land is separated from Mawari inland at Rapei stream, there should be some evidences in custom produced by defendant and witnesses, but defendant fails to prove this. At Hunihara Maneagosi a leader of atawa tribe inside Kaokaoraana claimed land marries Karihua which according to Defendants is also from atawa tribe inside Kaokaoraana claimed land .In custom this is referred to as werewere and is not proper in custom. In those days people found committing werewere or marrying the same line are sent out, killed or even sold out. Defendant confirms to court that they didn't stay a long time in their previous settlements .In Hunariki they cause problem; defendant did not clarify what problem they cause. Frequent movement from settlement to settlement might also indicated that they cannot settle there, because the land is already been occupied.

The court proves that through the marriage of Maneagosi to Karihua at Hunuhara they settled there. lf Karihua is from atawa tribe, why don't this present generation inherit from Karihua, but instead they inherit from Maneagosi a man. According to our custom we inherit land from woman. Defendant fails to clarify to court why he owns Kaokaoraana claimed land through Maneagosi. Defendant further claims that he has properties as coconut plantation in the land. Coconut plantation is not historical evidence as they were only planted in 1968 and 1984 and recent evidences as confirmed by the court. Nuts found standing in the land was claimed by plaintiff as his grandfather's properties and stated have picked them during his childhood days.

There was a large grave site of about fifty tribesman of defendants were buried, according to plaintiff his grandfather Be'e was buried there as well who married Kasunaki the land owner. Cemetery as proved by court are recent as before according to custom people are not buried in proper cemeteries like that as people are left to rot on Ririhau or stones pile together or left to rot before bones are collected for worship or to be stored in a certain tabu site . The practice of proper grave yards is a concept introduced during the colonial days. The court is in doubt as to why defendant fails to clarify if people in the past are buried or left to rot before their bones are collected.

Rimaniasi was built when plaintiff's tribesmen stayed at Aumera village is proved to be true as court did prove that on the exact location of the custom house as shown by the plaintiff is raised up higher than the surrounding area. Defendant also shows where his custom house was built, on question by court of the name of the custom house, it does not have a name, in custom a custom house must have a name or mark to prove its existence. Defendant further claimed a tabu stone shaped as a man's face it does not have a name as well. At Manitangi a woman named Kabago used to worship there. In custom only men are appointed to offer sacrifices or worship devil. If this is proper according to custom then defendant should have a explanation to convinced the court as to why this particular woman worships defendants devil at Manitangi. Defendant further confirm the actual site where the custom house is built is been destroyed by a bull dozer if this statement is true then there shouldn't be any coconut growing as the logging is just a recent operation in the 1900's.

In the case of plaintiff Karihua his devil was worshipped at Rigunipaewa by Nuruta a man and this is proper according to custom.

At Taogaoraha three of Defendants tribesman were buried this was confirmed by plaintiff to be true as defendants tribesmen. Plaintiff stated that the five old men from defendant's tribe told him this. If defendant is really the land owner why should defendants own people witnessed against him. This proves to the court that the atawa tribe knows really Kaokaoraana land is not theirs but Ben Taraurus ownership. According to defendants statement atawa tribe who owned Kaokaoraana claimed land kept Kapinihirima woman in which Ben T Suku's generation begins from. If she is not a land owner why should Kapinihirima resides in side Kaokaoraana claimed land .Defendant does not prove to court why Kapinihirima's present generation should not own Kaokaoraana claimed land as a woman,and yet Maneagosi from which Walter Taraharu's generation begins from a man should own this land. This is not proper in our custom we inherit land from woman and not from a man's tribe.

Plaintiff's witness 1 Richard Ringe proves to court that his grandfather Mose Make stays at Matahana and before returning to his own land at Maniwaro Make makes a feast to feed Kasunaki and Taramahuara brother and sister who own Kaokaoraana claimed land. If this brother and sister are not land owners why should this feast be held for them, an atawa of Walter's tribe be fed rather than this two. This is proper in custom as people usually feed people for using their land.

Tekuwawa the shark as claimed by defendant to be his devil is also worshipped by plaintiff's witness l's ancestors. Is it proper in custom for a tribe to have two devils. Defendant did have two devil one worshipped by Kabago and the other is Tekuwawa. Even today you cannot save two masters. He does not say why he have two devils.

The second plaintiffs witness Robert Mamahui confirms to the court that plaintiff is the land owner, Taramahuara Mawari's tribesman stop Joe Dickenson a Whitman from purchasing Kaokaoraana passage. If Wauni a land owner Joe Dickenson should have purchased the land from him rather than Listening to Taramahuara. Defendant confirms to court that Joe Dickenson did want to buy the land from Aumera to Aupare but did not know the reason as to why this big land is wanted. He further confirms that there are two leaders looking after Kaokaoraana claimed land Manuimae for Mawari tribe and Maneagosi for atawa tribe. The court did found out that two tribes are occupying the land.

Plaintiff's third witness Ruben Murimae did confirms to the court that Maneagosi is from Manihata from the other side of the Island and just come when the land the land is already occupied by Mawari tribe Maneagosi and tribe only entered into this land from Manihata after Punguhau killed their people from Manihata, other flee to this side while others left behind. Defendants own tribe from other side is a witness against his own tribe, he stated that he does not want to rubbish his tribe's name saying that they steal another tribe's land. If Kaokaoraana claimed land is his ownership why should he help a different tribe to give away his own land from his tribesman.

Defendant witness 1 Ben Waitoro only confirms the properties in Kaokaoraana claimed land and land boundary from Rapei stream from above, Waima Amera and Aupare but produces no further evidences to show to separation or ownership of land.

Micheal Mika defendant's second witness only confirms worships sites but does not produce new evidences to convince the court of its doubts.

The court will now look at the Genealogy of plaintiff and defendant separately. Kapinihirima is from Mawari who gave birth to Kaoko who marries Tagera from Kaonasugu who does not paid for Kaoko's bride price who gave birth to Plaintiff's grandmother Kasunakini, who marries Joe Bee and gave birth to plaintiff's mother Kapinihirima who marries Welsman from Malaita and gave birth to Plaintiff. Defendant did not present his geneology statement in court. Court only knows that defendant resides inside Kaokaorana claimed land through Maneagosi a leader of atawa tribe inside the land a man who migrates into the land from outside.

All in all the court is satisfied with all evidences give in by Plaintiff and his witnesses and the Defendant and his witnesses according to evidences produced in court.

DECISION

1. Ben Suku is the rightful owner of Mawari land from the bush down to seaside including the said Kaokaoraaana land.

2. As a rightful owner Ben Suku has the full right to accept defendant Davis Filoisi to live on the land or not.

3. As a rightful owner Ben Suku has the full right to care for Meagosi's tribe living on the land.

Right of Appeal explained 3 months from today's date 18/04/2013 to 18/07/2013.

Francis Woritrisi	Mary Vanessa Sande
PRESIDENT	CLERK