IN THE ESTATE OF PAUL 		-V-	IN THE MATTER OF 
MAENU’U, LATE OF HATADEA,		THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
NWMALISITA, M/PROVINCE			ACT (CAP. 31)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(BROWN J)

Civil Case No. 54 of 2016

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 	11 September 2017

R. Muaki for claimant the Public Trustee
C. Ruele  for the objector.

Reasons refusing objectors claim to administer intestate estate of the late Paul Maenu’u.

Brown J:

By virtue of S.5 (1) the Public Trustee has made application to the court for letters of administration of the intestate estate of Paul Maenu’u who passed away on 12 December 2015.
 
On the 12 February 2016 anobjection was filed by the surviving son & wife to the grant of administration applied for by the Public Trustee. The son Ben Maenu’u is the son of the 1st wife of the deceased. Joyce Maenu’u is the surviving wife who married the deceased on 2 August 2014.

By marriage to the 1st wife [whose name was not mentioned in the sworn statements of the objectors] Ben Maenu’u was born of that union. Seven issue by the 2nd wife survive, there were no issue from the union with Suzie Iro and only 3 issue from the marriage with Joyce Maenu’u.

The preponderance of evidence is that Ben Maenu’u would be an appropriate person to administer the estate since he is a business-man in his own right and seen by Suzi as suitable.  

The reason the Public Trustee seeks to pursue this application in face of the objections is that there has been disputation amongst the surviving issue; the estate is one of some substance.  Without allowing argument, I accept that Suzi by Malaitan custom has conceded Ben is the appropriate male of the line to seek to administer the estate. She does not seek to be included in administration. The latest wife Joyce, also concedes Ben’s interest to take administration.

Other siblings were in custody over criminal acts but are presently on bail, awaiting the outcome of this application.

They do not make application to administer, for they approved of and authorized the Public Trustee. By sworn statement Mr. Richard Mauki, an authorized officer of the Public Trustee, at “PT3” annexed a list of the inventory of the real estate, personal properties and company holdings is shown together with details of the bank account with the BSP. These assets are substantial and clearly will need to be properly dealt with in accordance with law.

By S.29 of the Wills Probate and Administration Act, the order of priority of those entitled to a grant of administration is prescribed by Rules. By Rule 3 a child of the deceased may apply. I am satisfied Ben is such a child referred to in R. 3(1)(b) and further that the surviving spouse has conceded her right under R. 3(1)(a) in favour of Ben.

By S.29 (2) this court has discretion “where it appears to the court , that by reason of any special circumstance or current customary usage, any estate ought to be administered by some person other than those specified in the order of priority, the court may grant administration to such person.”

The question then is whether the nature of the estate and the fact of the obvious disputation amongst those entitled to a share amounts to reason of special circumstance giving rise to the exercise of the courts discretion in favour of the Public Trustee rather than to follow the order of priority.

There is a suggestion that the parties may become reconciled were Ben to administer the estate but, with the Magistrates court case discharged under S. 192(b)(2) of the Penal Code, Ben has foregone any right of claim to the assistance of police over larceny of pieces of timber. This court should proceed with the hearing to resolve any lingering resentment amongst the likely beneficiaries of the estate.

Section 35 of the Act relates the provisions of S. 29 [where the Public Trustees seek administration under S. 5 of the Public Trustee Act], subject to Section 5 and not in derogation of Section 5 of the Public Trustee Act. That section provides for an application by the Public Trustee for letters of administration where a person has died intestate.  Such is the case here. In other words, S. 29[2] may not be read to preclude the paramount right in the Public Trustee to administer an intestate estate.

For by Rule 3 of the W, P, & A Act, the paramount right of the Public Trustee under the substantive law by S. 5 of the Public Trustee Act is not directly affected, rather the right of persons with a beneficial interest in the estate was recognized as a right to claim in order of priority, not an automatic right to administration. 

I am satisfied the Public Trustee is the appropriate authority to administer the estate. In any event having notice of the disputation amongst the putative beneficiaries, in various statements in support of the objector, I would be prepared to exercise my discretion in favour of the Public Trustee under S.29(2)

I refuse the objections claim to oppose the Public Trustee application. I made orders in terms of paragraph 1 of the Claim. The assets shall fall to be distributed in a accordance with law after proper discussion with those found beneficially entitled under custom.  Costs of these proceedings shall be paid by the estate.

__________________
BROWN J