Family Kalontano v Duruaki Council of Chiefs [2002] VUSC 32; Constitutional Case 040 of 2002 (24 May 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Civil Jurisdiction)

CONST. CASE No.40 2002

BETWEEN:

FAMILONTANO

Petitioner

AND:

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> DURUAKI COUNCIL OF CHIEFS

First Respondent

AND:

CHIEF F. MALESU

Second Respondent

AND:

CHIEF K. TARIPOAMARA

Third Respondent

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> AND:

CHIEF A. MARIMASOE

Fourth Respondent

AND:

CHIEF T. MATAKORMARATan>

Fifth Respondent

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Coram: Chief Justice Vince Lunabek

Counsel: Kami Aromalo in person representing the Petitioner

Mr. Kiel Loughman for the Respondents

DECISION

<

This is a Constitutional Petition. The Petitioner is r is Kammy Aromalo who petitioned the Court on behalf of Family Kalontano (Petitioner) against the Respondents: Duruaki Council of Chiefs and other individual chiefs.

The Petitioner alleges thatrights under Article 5(1)(d(1)(d), (g) and (k) of the Constitution have been breached by the Respondents.

The Petitioner says that Family Kalontano (Petitioner) is disputing custom chief title with another family “Family Lieth”.

It is common ground that the title of custom chief has not yet been determined by the First Respondent.

It is in the process of attempting to meet and consider the isf the dispute that the Peti Petitioner alleged that some of his rights guaranteed under Article 5(1)(d), (g) and (k) are breached by the Respondents and, thus, the filing of this Petition before the Supreme Court.

The Respondents file an application to strike out the Petition on the the grounds as set out in the defence dated 18 April 2002.

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> I have had opportunity to consider arguments and ssions of the Petitioner aner and the Respondents and I come to the conclusion that the Petition must be struck out for the following reasons:

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> 1. ;&nbssp;&nnbsp;&bsp;&nsp;&nsp; It is prem.

>

2. &&nsp;;&nspp; Tse The disp dispute has yet to be determined by the First Respondent between the two disputing parties.

: 1">

3. & &nnsp;&&nbp;;&nbp; &nbp; &nnbp;& The Pete Petitioner is not prejudiced. There is no breach ofrigh righ gteed Arti of tnstit.

4. &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;  p;&nssp; Tpan>The Petitioner has yet to exercise his rights to put his case before the appropriate customary institutavingjurison to deal with the matt dispute.

5. &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;

UPON the basis of the above, the Court makes the following Orders and Directions:

1. nbsp; p; &nbp; &nbssp; &nbssp; Tspan>span "EN-Gyle="size:pt"> Petits strut.

/p> <

2. &nbssp;&nnsp;&&nsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbsp; &nb THAT the disputing parties are ordered and directed that the the dispudispute bete be refe referred rred to the village level first and/or the dispute be dealt with pursuant to the structure as outlined by the Respondents’ in their affidavits.

3. &nbssp;&nnbsp;&nsp; &nsp; &nbssp; &&nsp;;&nsp; &nbp; n>THAT the Petitioneorder pay osts to the Respondents which costs are assessed at 4 at 40,0000,000 VT.

4. &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp; &nbsp THpan> the Petitioner is dirs directedected to p to pay thay the cose costs ofts of Vatu Vatu 40,000 within 4 months as from the date of this Order. The payments be by way of instalments of Vatu 10,000 each month commencing at end of May 2002 until full payment.

DATED at PORT-VILA, this 24^th DAY of MAY, 2002

BY THE COURT

Vincent LUNABEK

Chief Justice