Latailakepa v Latailakepa [2024] TOSC 73; FD 59 of 2024 (22 October 2024)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
DIVORCE JURISDICTION
NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY

FD 59 of 2024

BETWEEN :
‘ESETA PIPIENA LATAILAKEPA

- Petitioner

AND :
SIOSIONOA ‘I MANAMO’UI LATAILAKEPA

- Respondent

JUDGMENT

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE TUPOU KC
Counsel: Mr S. Fili for the Petitioner
Date: 22 October, 2024

The Proceedings

1. Mrs. Latailakepa petitions for divorce under the provisions of section 3(1)(f) of the Divorce Act.

Section 3(1)(f) state:

“Any husband or wife who is at the time of the institution of the suit domiciled in the Kingdom may present a petition to the Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Court”) praying the Court to dissolve the marriage upon evidence —

...............

(f) that the respondent and petitioner have been separated for a continuous period of 2 years or more immediately preceding the presentation of the petition without both of them maintaining or intending to maintain or renew normal marital relations or co-habitation with each other; or

..............”

2. She has applied via counsel for an undefended hearing as there has been no reply from the Respondent within the prescribed time.

The Evidence

3. The petition records that the Petitioner is residing in New Zealand at 32 Henderson St, Riversdale, Blenheim 7201, New Zealand. In an affidavit of 23 January, 2023, she further deposed that she has travelled to New Zealand in 2009 on a work visa and has remained in New Zealand under the said visa. She stated she had every intention to return to Tonga.
   
4. This court requested a copy of her work visa which was received on 7 June, 2024. It did not include the visa she was allegedly granted in 2009. The current visa permitted her to work in New Zealand for a period of 12 months from 24 May, 2022 to 24 May, 2023. One of the visa conditions is that she must leave New Zealand on or before the visa expiry date. There is nothing before me to show compliancy with the conditions of that visa.
   
5. The petitioner has clearly been domiciled in New Zealand for the past 15 years. This petition should not have been made. It is an abuse of the court process and time.
   
6. The requirement under section 3(1) of the Divorce Act that the petitioner must be domiciled in Tonga at the time a petition for divorce is instituted is in force. In future, similar petitions will simply be rejected.
   
7. The petition is dismissed.
   
8. The Petitioner shall cause a seal copy of this Judgment on the Respondent.
   

P. Tupou KC
J U D G E

Nuku’alofa: 22 October, 2024