![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Court of Appeal of Vanuatu |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil l Appeal Case No. 06 of 2002
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDER SAMSON
Appellant
AND:
CHIEF MOSES, JEFFREY OVA
First Respondent
AND:
CHIEF LUS
Second Respondent
Coram: Hon. Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek
Hon . Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki
Hon. Justice Bruce Robertson
Hon. Justice J. von Doussa
Hon. Justice Roger Coventry
Hearing Date: 22nd October, 2002
Counsel: Mr Saling Stephens for the Appellant
Mr Ronald Warsal for the First Respondent
The Second Respondent is not attending and not represented
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from the judgment of Hon. Justice Saksak dated 10th July 2002. The claim came before the Primary Judge by way of a specially endorsed writ of summons filed on 11th October 2000. The Respondent claimed for the following relief:
5. Damages to be assessed
The primary judge issued the following orders on 10th July 2002:
The defendant is given thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this judgment to vacate the land.
The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal against orders 1, 2 and 3 of the orders of the Supreme Court of the 10th July 2002. The Appellant initially proceeded on two (2) grounds as set out on the Memorandum of Appeal Dated 7 August 2002.
During the course of the hearing, the Appellant abandons the first ground and proceeds only with the second ground. The Appellant consented that the trial judge has wrongly exercised his discretion to grant the order of eviction when Goldsborough J. expressly stated in his judgement and/or decision that all claimants in the land case need not be evicted from the land because of overlapping claims in the overall claim and boundary of “Matantas” land.
We are informed that nobody lives on the land since 1995. The Appellants live now in another area and do gardens for their own subsistence. In the present case, we are of the view that the trial judge has correctly exercised his discretion to grant the order of eviction.
The appeal must be dismissed. The costs for this appeal and are in the trial are awarded for the Respondents.
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of this appeal and the trial are awarded in favour of the Respondent.
DATED at LUGANVILLE, this 23rd day of OCTOBER, 2002
BY THE COURT
VINCENT LUNABEK JUSTICE
D. FATIAKI
JUSTICE B. ROBERTSON
JUSTICE von DOUSSA
JUSTICE R. COVENTRY
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUCA/2002/27.html