[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Vanuatu

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2005 >> [2005] VUSC 113

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Family Mele v Lap [2005] VUSC 113; CC 017 2005 (23 September 2005)

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

Civil Case No. 17 of 2005

BETWEEN:

FAMILY MELE
Claimants

AND:

CHIEF JOSEPH LAP,
the Chairman of Supenatavuitano Island Land Tribunal
Defendant

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak
Mrs Anita Vinabit – Clerk

Parties: Mr Varucu Mele – Spokesperson for the Claimants
Chief Joseph Lap – Defendant is person.

JUDGMENT

The Claimants filed for Judicial Review on 9th May 2005 seeking a declaration to quash the decision of the Defendant Tribunal made on or about 8th March 2005. Mr Mele filed a sworn statement in support of the application on 9th May 2005. The Statement contains some five paragraphs. He has omitted to annex a copy of the decision he seeks a review of.

The Defendant filed a defence on 4th August in compliance with the orders of the Court dated 26th May 2005 as re-issued on 30th June 2005. They also filed a sworn statement by Chief Tom Rasu, secretary to the Defendant Tribunal on 3rd August 2005. Copies of these documents were served on Mr Mele in Court this morning. The Court allows some moments for Mr Mele to read them and make a response. His response was basically that the land in question has not been heard by a village tribunal yet and that the Defendant Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it on 8th March 2005.

The Court conducted a brief hearing in accordance with Rule 17.8(4) and treat the hearing as a conference hearing in accordance with Rule 17.8(1). The hearing of the parties is necessary for the Court to consider the matter, in subrule (3) of Rule 17.8.

The Court inquires from Mr Mele why no decision has been annexed to his sworn statement since the filing of the application to date. Mr Mele responds by saying that, the decision was verbal. Chief Rasu in reply says that the decision was written and provided to the parties of the case. The reason why Mr Mele does not have the decision is because he was not a party to the case.

The Court must believe Chief Rasu because he is the Secretary to the Defendant Tribunal. The Court must believe his evidence showing that the Claimants have different claim which if registered must commence at the village tribunal but they have refused to register their claim and pay the appropriate fees. Base on the information received from both sides the Court is able to consider and decide on the matters in subrule (3). And the Court is satisfied that:-

(a) the claimants have no arguable case;

(b) the claimant is not directly affected by the decision of the Defendant tribunal;

(c) There has been no undue delaying making the claim;

(d) There are other remedy that the claimants can pursue to resolve their matter fully and directly.

Accordingly in accordance with Rule 17.8(5) the Court declines to hear the Claimant’s case further and hereby strike it out in its entirety.

It follows that the Claimants must pay the Defendants costs of having to attend Court and defending themselves against the claim which they have done successfully. Costs usually follow the event. I therefore order the Claimants to pay the Defendant’s costs of transport and accommodation only of certain of its members who must travel in and out of Luganville for the purposes of this case. The Defendants are directed to submit their costs to Mr Mele within 14 days for payment within the next 28 days thereafter, unless there are objections, in which case the matter will have to be brought for taxation by the Court.

DATED at Luganville this 23rd day of September, 2005.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge