Molvatol v Sangary [2026] VUSC 1; Civil Case 883 of 2022 (30 January 2026)

IN THE SUPREME COURT	Civil
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU	Case No. 22/883 SC/CIVL
(Civil Jurisdiction)
BETWEEN:	Family Vemol represented by Frank Molvatol
	Claimant
AND:	Family Sangary
	First Defendant
AND:	Republic of Vanuatu
	Second Defendant

Date:	30 January 2026
Before:	Justice V.M. Trief

Counsel:	Claimant – Mr L. Tevi
	First Defendant – in person
	Second Defendant – Ms J.E. Toa, excused from further appearance

DECISION AS TO APPLICATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDERS

1. The Judgment dated 3 May 2024^[1] contained the following order at para. 22(e):
   
   22. 
       

(e) That the First Defendant and its members are restrained from entering any agreement and any sale or other leasehold dealing in respect of Buoro custom land on Aore island or any leasehold title over that land until further Order of the Court...

2. On 21 November 2025, the Claimant Family Vemol represented by Frank Vemol filed Application for Contempt of Court Orders seeking orders that the First Defendant together with Ruth Tevi be fined or imprisoned for breaching the order at para. 22(3) of the judgment (the ‘Application’). The Sworn statement of Frank Vemol was filed in support of the Application.
   
3. The grounds of the Application include that on 10 October 2025, Mr Vemol saw the First Defendants [sic] and Ruth Tevi discussing agreements to lease and sale with respect to Buoro custom land on Aore island at Natangura Café, Luganville. Further, that on 31 October 2025, he saw Ruth Tevi and Bradley Wood’s employees digging sand on Buoro custom land through the authorization of the First Defendant. Further, that Ruth Tevi called him on 1 November 2025 and told him that he is not a land owner of the land. He stated that Ms Tevi and Mr Wood are lessees of land on Buoro custom land but not the part of the land on which their employees are loading sand from.
   
4. However, Ms Tevi is not a party to the present proceeding. Accordingly, she cannot be held in contempt of Orders as they do not apply to her.
   
5. Secondly, there is no identification or naming of who the particular members of the First Defendant family, in both the Application and the sworn statement in support, that it is asserted have carried out the acts complained of. There is no evidence of how such persons are members of the First Defendant family.
   
6. Thirdly, Mr Vemol was not part of the meetings/discussions complained of hence his assertions that the First Defendant and Ms Tevi were discussing an agreement and sale of lease on Aore island are merely conclusions that he has drawn or are based on a hearsay communication by a third party (which have not been disclosed).
   
7. Finally, Mr Vemol’s evidence is that Ms Tevi and Mr Wood are lessees of Buoro custom land. However, he has not adduced any evidence of their leasehold property and identifying whether or not the land on which he complains that their employees were digging sand is on leased land or not, and that it is outside Ms Tevi and Mr Wood’s leasehold property.
   
8. For the reasons given, the Application is declined and dismissed.
   
9. There is no order as to costs.
   

DATED at Port Vila this 30^th day of January, 2026

BY THE COURT

.................................................

Justice Viran Molisa Trief

---

^[1] Vemol v Sangary [2024] VUSC 380