[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 127

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

Masoekau v Duruaki Council of Chiefs [2005] VUSC 127; CC 180 2003 (18 November 2005)

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

Civil Case No. 180 of 2003

BETWEEN:

CHIEF MASOEKAU
Claimant

AND:

DURUAKI COUNCIL OF CHIEFS
First Defendant

AND:

WILLIE TASARURU
Second Defendant

AND:

CYRUS FRANK, HENRY LAKELEO, FRED JOSEPH & JOEL TASARURU
Third Defendant

Mr. Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Mr. Felix L. Kabini for the Claimant
Mr. George F. Boar for the Defendants - not appearing

JUDGMENT

The Claimant applied on 28th November 2003 seeking the Court's interpretation of its Orders dated 30th October 2003 and in particular, paragraph 3 which states -

"That this whole matter be referred back to the Duruaki Council of Chiefs to assist the parties in settling their dispute."

In applying for the Orders of 30th October 2003 Chief Masoekau relied on the sworn statement of Philimon Ishmael. He is the son of Chief Ishmael Masoekau. He annexed the letter by his father to the Second Defendant dated 10th October 2003.

Upon reading the letter it appeared to the Court that there were two issues: -

(a) Chief Masoekau was dissatisfied as paramount chief that the Duruaki Council of Chiefs were going to ordain Willie Tasaruru within the Raitoa boundary, which was and is directly under the Chiefly responsibility of Chief Masoekau.

(b) Chief Masoekau disputes that the Chiefly title Mariwelukina or Napuawia should notbe conveyed on Willie Tasaruru since he originated from Emau Island, and that he (Chief Masoekau) was the right person to be given that title.

There is also a further issue which the Court is unclear about which arises directly from issue (b) above. Chief Ishmael is already vested with the title "Masoekau" which he says in his letter is his boundary and bloodline paramount chiefly title. In that regard, how is it possible to lay claim to another chiefly title "Mariwelukina".

It is under those circumstances that the Court felt that the matter should go back to the Duruaki Counsel of Chiefs to hold further hearings to put the matter right.

Indeed there appears also to be a dispute over the chiefly title "Masoekau" as can be seen from paragraph 8 of Chief Masoekau's application filed on 27th November 2003. Subsequently the Defendants applied on 5trh December 2003 seeking orders to the effect that Ishmael Kenneth has no standing in this matter contenting that it is the Defendants who have the customary right to the title "Masoekau".

That application has not been heard but it is now apparent that there are disputes over the Chiefly titles of "Masoekau" and "Meriwelukina-Tapu".

These are issues which in the view of the Court, the Duruaki Council should be given another opportunity to revisit. If the parties do not agree because Duruaki council has decided on the "Masoekau" title once, then it may be that the matter be put before a different council to hear and decide.

So the current position as the case stands is that "the whole matter" now involves a dispute over the "Mariwelukina" and "Masoekau" chiefly titles. These issues must be treated as one because they are so closed and directly related and knitted together that they cannot be dealt with separately or in isolation.

The Orders of 30th October 2003 are confirmed. The proceedings in this Court are stayed pending further hearing by the Duruaki Council

DATED at Port Vila, this 18th day of November 2005

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge.