Liu v Rihai [2001] VUSC 4; Civil Case 027 of 1998 (13 February 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Civil Jurisdiction)

CCase No.27 of 1998

BETWEEN:

ERNEST LIU

Plaintiff

GODWIN RIHAI (Deceased)

First Defendant

AND:<

STRUCK BULU

Second Defendant

AND:

HONOURABNISTER OF LANDS

Third Defendants

Coram: Before Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Ms Cynthia Thomas – Clerk

<

Mr Hillary Toa for the Plaintiff

Mr Bill Bani Tangwata for the First Defendant

No appearances for the Second and Third Defendant

JUDGEMENT

The State Law Office represehe Third Defendant. They apply in absentio today seek seeking orders that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s writ of summons together with his statement of claim as against the Third Defendant. They submit in their written submissions that the Plaintiff’s claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Third Defendant. They contend that the proper person to have been joined as Party to the Proceedings would have been the Director of Land Records.

class="MsoBoMsoBodyText" align="left" style="text-align: left; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Mr Bill Tangwata submitted views consistent with the submissions by the State Law Office.

Mr Toa made references tographs 3 and 6 of the Plaintiff’s statements of claimclaim as amended and submit that the Minister being the Head of the Department under which the Director of Land Records function is appropriately joined for the purpose of rectification of the Register of leases.

I have looked carefully at the statement of claim of the Plaintiff. It iar that he does not challenallenge the registration of the leasehold title which is the subject-matter of this action. He does not claim as part of his relief rectification of the register. If he did the appropriate cause of action would be to lodge an application under sections 99 and 100 of the Land Leases Act Cap.163. He does not claim that a lease was registered as a result of fraud or mistake.

class="MsoBoMsoBodyText" align="left" style="text-align: left; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> For those reasons I am satisfied that no reasonable cause of acti disclosed as against the Tthe Third Defendant and I accordingly dismiss the Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons as against them.

As regards their application for costs, there will be no order as to costs against the Plaintiff. It would have been different if the State Law Office was present through Counsel.

DATED at Luganville this 13^th day bruary, 2001.

<

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge