Vanusosok v Marcel [2011] VUSC 215; CC 30 of 2011 (10 March 2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 30 of 2011

BETWEEN:

FAMILY VANUSOSOK, FAMILY TASO, FAMILY BATICK, FAMILY HERONG MALOS, FAMILY ANDRE, FAMILY VETUR, FAMILY EMILE, FAMILY TEREL, FAMILY KHOKO, FAMILY LAHAVIMA, FAMILY HARANG LUAN IRENE, FAMILY LEMUNG, FAMILY FREDERIC, FAMILY SOROM, FAMILY ETUEL, FAMILY BONGMEME, FAMILY SANG, TALIS, MARK, & KLAVERI, FAMILY LEMANG, CLAUDE FRANK, & AUGUSTE, FAMILY ATEIN, FAMILY MIKAEL, ERNES, KUSTA, SAKARI VALERIE, & VICTOR, FAMILY LEMANG OF LAMAP, SOUTH MALEKULA
Claimants

AND:

KOUBAK MARTIN KOUBAK MARCEL, RONO KOUBAK OF LAMAP COMMUNITY, MALEKULA
First Defendants

AND:

FAMILY KOUBAK OF LAMAP COMMUNITY, MALEKULA
Second Defendant

AND:

REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
Third Defendant

Hearing: 10th March, 2011
Before: Judge R. L. B. Spear
Claimant: Mr. C. Leo
1st & 2nd Defendants: Mr. K. Loughman
Third Defendant: Ms. F. Williams

DECISION/ORDERS

10th MARCH 2011

1. The Claimants apply for urgent relief in respect of Land described and contained within Rural Residential Lease 09/1542/005 and in respect of money received for the use of that land.
   
2. The land concern is a large and a very valuable a block of some 2000 hectares which includes one of the best natural harbors in Vanuatu.
   
3. The land also has a number of public ( and perhaps private) facilities situated on it in respect of which rental is paid and held by the Minister of Lands in a trust account pending resolution of all ownership disputes.
   
4. The application for relief is supported by a sworn statement form Chief Vanusosok that also produces a body of documentation relating to this dispute.
   
5. The dispute can conveniently be describe as follows:
   
   1. The first decision of the local land committee dated 15 May 1997 declared the defendants to be the custom owners of the Land;
      
   2. The second decision by essentially the same land committee dated 2 July 2010 that essentially reverses the earlier decision and declared the Claimants to be the customs owners of the land.
      
   3. The appeal - the defendants lodged an appeal to the Malekula Area Land Tribunal on 19 July 2010 against that second decision. It has not yet been determined.
      
   4. Registration - before the second decision was given, the defendants commenced the process of registering a lease for the land – all in accordance at the time with the first decision.. That registration process took some time and was not indeed completed until 14 February 2011 by the registration of the lease.
      
6. Ms Williams, for the third defendant (Republic of Vanuatu), indicated right from the outset that the Republic did not oppose the orders sought by the claimants. Furthermore, the Republic did not propose to take an active part of this proceeding and it would abide the decision of the Court except as to costs.
   
7. Mr. Loughman initially indicated, for the first and the second defendants, that they opposed the application. However, after appreciating that it was necessary to have all rights preserved pending resolution of the dispute concerning the ownership of the land (indeed, his clients' appeal), Mr Loughman responsibly withdrew his opposition.
   
8. It is clear that the justice of the matter requires the land in question not be dealt with in any way that might be averse to the competing interests of the disputing parties as to custom ownership. Mr Loughman's concession will probably have some beneficial significant to his clients when questions of costs fall to be determined by this Court within this proceeding.
   
9. The following orders are made by consent:
   
   1. The first and second defendants will not deal with the land (described and contained in Rural Residential Lease 09/1542/005) in any way that might affect the interest of the custom owners (as may eventually be determined). Such dealings to include any form of alienation or charging of the land by way of sublease, subdivision, mortgage or suchlike;
      
   2. The third defendant will not permit the registration of any dealings with the land (described and contained in Rural Residential Lease 09/1542/005) until further order;
      
   100. The third defendant furthermore will hold securely in trust for the parties herein any money already received or which are received from time to time in respect of the use of the land (described and contained in Rural Residential Lease 09/1542/005) until further order.
        
10. Costs in the cause
    

BY THE COURT – this 10th day of March 2010