Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Local Court of Solomon Islands

  Download original PDF

Kaipito, Re [1991] SBLC 3 (30 September 1991)

Custom Court proceeding held at Kolomola village on 25th -30th Sept 1991.

Subject - Kaipito disputed land.

Decesion from the Chiefs of Maringe Bush to the following tribe leaders.

1. Fafago tribe led by John Sopamana (Nakmirufunei)
2. Seasela tribe led by Brown Figrimana (Posamogo)
4. Koramata tribe led by William Manedao (Posamogo)
3. Terisa Jaejae tribe led by Samuel Biu (Posamogo)
6. Rarade tribe led by Ezekiel Kokomana (Posamago)
5. Glalageo tribe led by Forest Kalumana (Nakmirufunei)

This court decision was not done in a normal way. Straight after the court ends because the tribe leaders requested the decision be made with consultations with the paramount chief. When consultated about the agreement the Paramount chief,: disagreed because he said he was not there present during the hearing so he could assist, but instead he revealed that the Chiefs who attended the hearing to go ahead with the decision.

However, our final decision held at Kolofagha to day 15th October 1991. These facts then; Summarises the decision.

1. Fafago tribe as in (a) history (b) properties, (c) boundry.

a) History - fafago have produced their history. In determining the history one would note; only a tribe knows their own tribes history.
b) properties - the following properties has been visited and eye witnessed; 2 only thututamuu; 1 only thina Najukhu (Konide); 1 only thina faafara (phadagi); 1 only suga thori; 1 only thina khilo; a very geniune living traditional custom shell found at Sea shore (sodathua).; there he/she may sick and die (Nenehe phan khou)
c) boundry - their boundry is firm.

We therefore declare that Fafago tribe has the rightful ownership of their own claimed land.

2. Seasela tribe as in (a) history; (b) properties; (c) boundry

a) history - Seasela has their history. In determining their history it was brought to them by their forefathers.
b) properties - the following has been visited for them. 3 only thifuni; 4 only thututannu; 2 only thina khilo; 1 only Phadagi; 1 only thine tuthuana; 2 only tuhmu.
c) boundry - their boundry is firm.

With those findings we declare Seasela has the rightful ownership of their claimed land boundry.

3. Terisa Jaejae as in (a) history (b) properties (c) boundry

a) history - Terisa produced their history begin by naming Folisagu, Maoli as queens of their tribe which also claimed by Rarade tribe the begining of their family tree.
b) properties - the following properties has been visited; 1 only thifuni; 1 only thututamnu; 1 only Phadagi; 2 only thina khilo; 1 only thoutoku; 2 only thina Nagukhu; 1 only thoa;
c) boundry - their boundry is not certain

Having noted the facts that Terisa Jaejae has also claimed Folisagu, Maoli as head of their tribe so as Rarade tribe does we declare Terisa has no ownership of any land yet as therein claimed.

4. Koramata tribe as in (a) history; (b) properties; (c) boundry.

a) history - Koramata produced their history. In determining the history three (3) points was determined a clean evidence of cheating by the Koramata.
b) properties - the following properties has been visited. 2 only thifuni; 1 only thoa; 1 only thine khilo; 1 only thina khilo naele.
c) boundry - their boundry is not firm or stable.

In determining the presentations by the Koramata three points were found to be a clear evidence of cheating.

(i) in their presentations Koramata mentioned a thoa (tower) and a cave to hid from enemies, when visited there was only the thoa but not the cave as mentioned.
(ii) the boundry was done on the advise of Mr Halfnoon.
(iii) the claimed boundry Koramata is not firm or stable.

Therefore we declare Koramata has no right of the land claimed therein

5. Glalageo tribe as in (a) history; (b) properties; (c) boundry.

a) history - Glalageo tribe produced their history.
b) properties - the following properties have been visited. 1 only thifuni; 1 only thututamnu; 2 only tuhmu; 2 only thoutoku;
c) boundry - they have an overlaped boundry.

We declare Glalageo tribe may claim rightfull ownership if their boundry as per claimed therein, and should therebe anyone disputing the findings may lodge an appeal in due time.

6. Terisa Rarade as in (a) history; (b) properties; (c) boundry.

a) history - Rarade produced their history as well. In determining the history by Rarade the history was set well and fine.
b) properties - the following properties have been visited. 3 only thututamnu; 1 only tuhmu; and there wer nuts trees, breadfruits cutnuts also included .
c) boundry - their boundry is firm and stable.

The chiefs declare Rarade tribe has the rightful ownership of their land claimed therein, except that Terisa is contradicting the truth of your histories by claiming again Folisagu, Maoli to where your family tree begin.

In our final analysis, we the Bush Maringe chiefs here present declare to uphold or still maintain to the West Hograno brother chiefs decision our court decision to-day, based on the reasons and findings shown to you here in the decision paper.

Chiefs attended the hearinge are:-
Chief Martin Siaro - Kolokofa (Chairman)
Chief Joshua Faiti - Kolokofa
Chief Barnabas- Kolokofa
Chief Leonard Rava - Baru
Chief Atkin Hato - Baru
Chief Elia Deke - Baru
Chief Henry Fotamana - Tirotonna
Chief Asaeli - Tirotonna
Chief Mostyn Lehui - Bare (Secretary)