IN THE GUADALCANAL CUSTOMARY LAND APPEAL COURT

Land Appeal case No. of 1995

IN THE MATER of an appeal against the decision dated 3rd April, 1995 Of the Guadalcanal Local Court.

AND

IN THE MATTER of VAI CUSTOMARY LAND

BETWEEN:

JOSEPH MANEUGU
Appellant

AND:

RAYMOND JUAPI
Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL
TAKE NOTICE that the Guadalcanal Customary land Appeal Court will be moved on appeal by Joseph Maneugu the appellant who was the Plaintiff in the land case concerning the ownership of VAI CUSTOMARY LAND against the decision dated 3rd April 1995 of the Guadalcanal Local Court.
AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds of appeal are as follows:‑
1. 	 The learned justices of the Local Court erred in their judgment when they failed to carefully consider and apply custom usage and practice that were and still are applicable in the transaction between the ancestors of the parties and the parties in the following factors:‑
(a) 	the Respondent's ancestors were originally from the Kakau Tribe and later he was converted to the Gaubata Tribe and therefore his ancestors were not originally landowners of Vai Land;
(b) 	the original Gaubata tribe of To'o and Solomae (brothers) were the original landowners of the Vai Customary land and the Respondent had failed to show clearly in evidence that he is related to the original Gaubata Tribe;
(c) 	the first purchase of Vai Customary land was in appreciation of an important deed, that is, the burial of landowner and Chief To'o of the Gaubata Tribe of Vai by the Appellant's Kakau Tribe;
(d) 	the second purchase of Vai Customary Land was done by the Appellant's tribe upon the Gaubata Tribes arrangement by diverting it from the purchase of Oda land after some members of the Gaubata Tribe refused to consent to the sale of the said land;
(e) 	the occurrance of a third custom ceremony was also instigated by the Gaubata Tribe to allow the Respondent's tribe to return to their land at Vai due to over-population at Kakabona;
(f) 	the purchase of the coastal part of Vai Customary Land (also known as Ruaniu) was made by the Appellant's ancestors who is from another sub-tribe of the Gaubata Tribe;
(g) 	the offer for repayment by the Gaubata Tribe of Vai Customary Land in 1984 was never accepted by the Chief and members of the Respondent's Kakau Tribe. The alleged acceptance by Raphaela was never an acceptance in accordance with custom practice of the parties.
2. 	The Local Court Justices had failed:
(a) 	to view the written evidence of the parties before the Chiefs as required under Section 8E of the Local Court (Amendment) Act 1985.
(b) 	to call one or more of the Chiefs who took part in making the decision to give evidence on the customary law applicable to all the facts set out in 1(a) to (f) above, in particular the essence in custom of the various transactions stated above as required under S.8E (c)(i) and (ii) of the Local Court (Amendment) Act 1985.
(c) 	further and or in the alternative, to refer the dispute to the Chiefs with directions on any or all of the facts referred to in 1(a) to (f) above.
3. 	The Local Court Justices had failed to consider all evidence of custom fairly and deligently in accordance with their own knowledge, skill and ability and decided the land dispute against the weight of the evidence.
AND the Appellant seeks the following orders from this Court:‑
(a) 	quash the decision of the Guadalcanal Local Court dated 3rd April, 1995;
(b) 	award ownership of Vai Customary land to the Appellant;
(c) 	alternatively, refer the land dispute to the chiefs with or without directions.
DATED this 27th day of June, 1995.
JOSEPH MANEUGU
Appellant
JUDGEMENT
This is a claim involving a Land dispute namely Vai Land. Parties to the proceeding were Joseph Maneugu plaintiff, and Raymond Juapi Defendant.
The matter was first bought before the chieves on the 4th August 1993, as required under the Local Court Amendment Act 1995.
The chieves awarded the ownership of the said land to the defendant in the present case.
The plaintiff having not satisfied with the chieves decision pursued the matter further with the Guadalcanal Local Court.
Before the court considered the evidences before it. It must remained itself the standard of proof in a Civil Case. The plaintiff is required to prove his case on the balance of probability. If he fails to do so then the defendant must have the credit.
In the Plaintiffs evidence he told the court that the land was purchased twice or several times. The first payment was done by his ancestors and the second payment was done by himself. He told the court that those who are the food he presented during the second payment were still alive. He told the court that the area bought was from inland down to the coastal area.
The Coastal Area was from Mayo river mouth to Umasani river mouth. He told the court that the area between the two rivers was sold by his oldmen to an European now known as Ruaniu plantation. He further told the court that he has been receiving royalty payment for the gravels extracted by the Guadalcanal Road Improvement Project in the past.
He also told the court that since the land was bought until now he had eight (8) generation so far.
PWI	Joseph Manehamosa in his sworn evidence told the court that he knew nothing about Vai Land.
He told the court that the area known to him was only between Maro river to Toba.
He told the court that someone by the name Maturino, had told him that he help to clear the bushes from Maro river to Ruaniu. He further told the court that Chauchilivi told him that the land belongs to him. He also told the court that the plaintiff himself, Ugo and Chrispino had told him that he owns the land has been referring to.	
PW2	Lodvick Kaulake, told the court that he heard from some oldmen that Vai Land was bought by the plaintiffs ancestors before. He told the court that at one time the defendants uncle Veni Choga had asked him to make a second payment. They then made a second payment.	
In the defendants sworn evidence he told the court that he own the Vai Land by traditional rights, and continued to name his ancestors in a form of family tree. He told the court that in the past days nobody lived at Vai because a giant named Girodule had been eating people there. The giant was later killed by a warrior. It was after the death of the giant that his people came to settle at Vai Land. They settled at a place in the Vai Land called Vatupopo. When these people settled at Vatupopo they sent message to the head of the tribe To'o to come and joined them. He came and settled at Veratohoma and made a sacrificial site there.
The defendant went on to tell the court that after the death of To'o Vuarere came to Vai land. Vuarere with two others Kai and Gou went to Laona. Vuarere then established another sacrificial site. The defendant went on to tell the court how his ancestors came and went out of Vai Land. He told the court that the coastal area was cleared by his ancestor namely Parihau and three (3) other Lakuili tribes men. This include Ruaniu and upper along the Umasani river mouth and as far as Namongali. The defendant told the court that his ancestors had given some piece of land to these Lakuili men in reward for the work they had done. It was also stated by the defendant that after the death of To'o the two men Vosi and Valu came to Vai Land. At Vai Vosi was appointed chief in replace of To'o. After the death of Vosi Tavarau became chief Tavaru then called Vere Vuarongo, Go and Perole and they travel down to the Coast. They settled at Choka. From there they went to Peropana then Tanogoai. They cleared Baranakopina and planted coconuts. They then travel down to Baradoko. Tavarau died there. After that more people came to Vai Land. The defendant went on to tell the court that after the Christianity arrived the priest told the people from Vai Land to move down so they did.
In replied to the allege payment made by the plaintiff the defendant told the court that the plaintiff payment was only for a small part of land at Vai. The payment was made by Samuel Seke of Gaubata tribe on behalf of his daughter Raphaela. The payment was consist of one Malona(custom money) and one Torobuto custom money). The defendant told the court that this payment was reversed on the 17th April 1986. Raphaela accepted it and the land previously given to her was returned. The defendant denied any other payment made apart from this.
The defendant went on to say that at one stage his step father, Silvestire Baku from Lakuili tribe sent message to people of Kakabona to go and see him so that he would show them their land. These people brought foods with them. It was later discovered that the land that was to be showed to them does not belongs to him. The food were then distributed.
DWI	Supino Taba in his sworn evidence told the court that the land in dispute was owned by Gaubata tribe. He told the court the names of the ancestors of Gaubata tribe who settled in the Vai Land.
He went on to tell the court that the payment made was not for the land payment but for gardening site. The payment was reversed to Raphaela.
He further told the court that sometimes in 1963 the plaintiff and others went to Vura to asked for land to do garening. They asked Christopher Luza who was a Kakau Nuha tribe. Christopher didn't showed them any land. The Gaubata tribe then told them to make garden at Namongali to namonkots.	
DW2	Kasiano Veomate told the court that the payment made was merely for gardening and not to own the land.	
DW3	Belasio Tavarau told the court that he was a Kakau tribe. It was his tribe that the Gaubata tribe intermarried to since before. He told the court that Vai Land belongs to Gaubata tribe	
DW4	Daniel Kikile told the court that Vai land belongs to the tribe. The head of Gaubata tribe he own the land was his defendant. He told the court that it was his step mother Rapheala's parents who bought the land. They bought it for her. The land was only for gardening purpose. In 1986 Raphaela told the Gaubata tribe to reverse payment so that the land would be return to them. The Gaubata made a custom feast and the land was returned/.	
DW5	Mathew Matai merely told the court about the chieves hearing and how they awarded ownership of Vai land to the defendant.	
From the evidence before the court it was cleared that the land was originally own by the Gaubata tribe. The plaintiff had admitted in his evidence that he had just came to settled at Vai land. He was originated from Nahu.
The only arguement here was concerning the purchase of the land.
The plaintiff claimed that the land was purchased by his ancestor and then himself, the matter the defendant strongly denied.
Inorder for the court to make it's ruling on this it must heavily relied on the evidences adduced by the parties.
In any tribal occassion such as paying of land it is a very important issue according to the custom of Guadalcanal. Buying of land according to custom was not a new practice. The custom of land according to custom was not a new practice. The custom of Guadalcanal always regard it as a historical event. Usually at such occassion the head of tribe would sent message to members of his tribe so that preparation can be made for the occassion. At the time of the Ceremony you would expected people from between the tribes gathered together, customs words was given and payment of transaction made with explanation on the purpose of payment. Names of boundaries and land were given oreven surveyed the land. Not only the two tribe but other tribes would always be there to witness the occassion.
In this case the plaintiff kept mentioning that the land was paid for. He failed to mention to the court who was the first payment made to. The second payment was said to have been made by himself and was made to Veni Choga who was in cross examination was told to be the defendants uncle.
Again in such a important occassion Veni Choga cannot represent himself as the matter was a tribal issue. The plaintiff failed to mention who were witnessing the purchase. It was assumed that if there was a purchase then it was done between himself and Veni Choga only. The matter the plaintiff failed to verify it to the court.
The only payment the court convinced was made was the transaction made by Raphaela's parent and the Gaubata tribe. This was supported by the defendants witnesses. It was also evident that Raphaela was a Kakau Nuhu tribe, the same tribe as the plaintiff. It was the courts opinion that the plaintiff and Raphaela were related and the plaintiff was mixed up with this payment. The plaintiff and Raphaela somehow had a poor contact or not contacting each other that was why she willingly accepted to return the land. Apart from this Raphaela had no sister or brother thus it was proper to return the land.
According to the document tendered by the plaintiff and was alleged to be a document signed for the purchase of Ruaniu. The court had carefully looked through the contains of the document. Although Stephen Matakaui and Christopher Luidsa names appeared in the document, it appears that they were acting on behalf of Rova. This proves that the land owner must be Rava. Rava according to the evidence was a Gaubata tribe the defendant tribe.
Therefore, the court found it hard to accept that Stephen and Christopher were the land owner and were selling the Ruaniu and as theirs.
Having said all these the court had not satisfied that the plaintiff had made any customary purchase to Vai Land or for the Coastal Area between Mavo, and Umasani according to custom of Guadalcanal. The plaintiff failed to prove his case on the balance of probability. His case must be failed.
This court therefore award the ownership of Vai Land to the defendant Raymond Tuapi.
Right of Appeal Explained.
Dated this 3rd day of April 1995.

Clement Lukumi
Clerk

Andrew
President