Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Court of Appeal of Vanuatu |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Civil Appeal Case No: 40 of 2012
BETWEEN:
JEHU BONGNAIM AND FAMILY, JIMMY JEHU AND FAMILY, BENJAMIN LEWA AND FAMILY, JAMES JEHU AND FAMILY, BATO JEHU AND FAMILY, RICKON SAMSON
AND FAMILY, WILLIE SAMSON AND FAMILY, LEONARD LEINKONE AND FAMILY, JESSY HIVIR AND FAMILY Fanjever Village, North Ambrym, Malampa
Province in the Republic of Vanuatu
First Appellants
AND:
WORWOR GABRIEL AND FAMILY, FREDDY MAXWELL AND FAMILY, JONATHAN HULHUL AND FAMILY, SARIPAN WALWAL AND FAMILY, ALILI MOL AND FAMILY,
Fanjever and Faliliu Villages, North Ambrym, Malampa Province, in the Republic of Vanuatu
Second Appellants
AND:
ANDREW BEONGKON, JUSTIN RAMEL, BONG MAROM LAAN WILLIE AND ELI TIWOR comprising Area Council of Chiefs North Ambrym, Malampa Province
Third Appellants
AND:
ANDREW WELWEL AND FAMILY (FAMILY RORIRI), JEREDLY TATAO AND FAMILY (FAMILY RORIRI), CHIEF LEINGKON GIDEON AND FAMILY (FAMILY RORIRI),
represented by Andrew Welwel Fanjever Village, North Ambrym, Malampa Province, Republic of Vanuatu
Respondents
Coram: Hon. Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek
Hon. Justice Bruce Robertson
Hon. Justice Daniel Fatiaki
Hon. Justice John Mansfield
Hon. Justice Dudley Aru
Hearing: 17 October 2012
Appearances : 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Appellants: James Tari
Respondents: George Boar
Decision: 25 October 2012
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
a) The first and second defendants are to leave Melwei/Metamli land on Ambrym within one month and they are not to re-enter that land except with the express permission of Family Roriri;
b) The first and second defendants are liable for damages suffered by the claimants as a result of the physical assaults and property damages on 19 August 2012 and of being forced to leave their lands within the quantum of such damages still to be determined.
c) Costs for the claimants against the first and second defendants on a standard basis to agreed or taxed.
1) That the summary judgment be set aside;
2) The Supreme Court Civil Case No. 61 of 2011 be dismissed in its entirety;
3) Costs of and incidental to this appeal.
4) Any other orders as this Court deems necessary.
“A chief or elder is not qualified to be a member of a land tribunal unless he or she is included in a list approved under section 35 or 36.”
“8. When a Court is faced with such an objection to the constitution of a land tribunal, it is necessary to have regard first and foremost to sections 35, 36 and 37 of the Customary Land Tribunal Act.
9. By those sections, the council of chiefs for a particular area (whether a custom area or custom sub-area) is required first to determine the boundaries of the area under its customary regulation (to adopt the terminology employed by s.3 of the Act). That council of chiefs is then required to approve a list of those chiefs and elders who are considered qualified (as defined) and acceptable to adjudicate on disputes as to the boundaries or ownership of custom land within that area. These are mandatory requirements preliminary to but also essential to the establishment of any village land tribunal under ss 7 - 9.
10. There are other requirements on the council of chiefs including: (1) to forward the list of approved adjudicators to the Secretary of the Island council of chiefs (for a custom sub-area, a copy is also to be sent to the secretary of the council of chiefs for the custom area to which the sub-area belongs); and, (2) the annual revision of that list. The importance of those two steps to the legitimacy of a particular land tribunal will depend on the circumstances of the individual case.
11. In order to determine whether this Land Tribunal was lawfully constituted, and accordingly whether its decision is valid, it will be necessary for the Supreme Court first to ascertain which particular council of chiefs had "customary regulation" over the land in question. Once that is established, it will then need to determine whether the members of the land tribunal in question were, in each case, drawn from the list of approved adjudicators compiled by that particular council of chiefs. Finally, it must be satisfied that the necessary procedural steps (the giving of public notice and suchlike) have been taken pursuant to ss 7 - 9. This is a different issue to whether a land tribunal has conducted itself correctly under Part 6 of the Act."
FOR THE COURT
________________________________________________
The Honourable Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUCA/2012/26.html