IN THE MALAITA LOCAL COURT

LAND CASE NO: 7/91

DATE: 6/4/92

Name of Land in dispute: MAEASI

Name of Plaintiff: CONLIUS KWASITE'E OF NAONAULI VILLAGE

v

Name of Defendant: SIRU ABA'ABA OF FEEFATA KIBOKISI VILLAGE

DECREE
JUDGMENT
COURT FINDINGS
1. 	This land case was not done properly by the chief’s settlement.
2. 	The plaintiff statement of claim was based mainly at SINORO outside of disputed land call MAEASI and Court find that Plaintiffs generation also at SINORO. Plaintiff himself was of SINORO and first discovered AUBO'O. Claim covering Maeasi land. This Court not interest of Sinoro but only Maeasi disputed land. Court notice that ULASI discovered AUBO'O. From Ulasi to your son Kwasitee (2) 7 guaration while you have 13 generation for Sinoro. You plaintiff (1) C. Kwasitee said in your statement that Aub000-is your principal sacrifice site.
During our survey you show to Court party one group of stone. No any ETEA, or BIBI was noticed as you answered C Question 6 find not custom signs as said. Even at Luluga.
3. 	You denied. Dfd (1) Siruabaaba not seen his offer sacrifice at Luluga or Maeasi disputed land.
Your witnesss (4) Mark during survey cried and confess to confirm that Siruabaaba Dfd (1) also bring taro and pigs to sacrifice or REE at FATABALA tabu site. But denied your C. Kwasitee Plaintiff.
4. 	You Plaintiff said. Galisu'u born of a woman name TETEFIU of your tribe but GEGEO DW 5 who was descendants of GALISUU denied that plaintiff (1) not related to TETEFIU (f). She is of FUNILOFO tribe. There Funilofo award Luluga parcel of his ancestor GALISU'U.
5. 	Defendant (1) Siruaba have 17generation for FUNILOFO. While Ptff have 7 generation for Auboo. Court belief that Dfd 1 + 2 first discovered of Funilofo covering Maeasi land. Defendants, gave (4) parcels of land to his female side.
6. 	Both Conlius Kwasitee and Olosua mentioned in Court gave some parcels of land to your female tribe, but during survey Court did not see any principal custom signs at Auboo H.Q to qualify your gifts. So Court doubt your claim, your principal Sacrifice sites. Therefore Court disqualified your boundaries spearline claim in this case.
7. 	Court belief that your PM (2), OLOSUA descendants of GALISUU female line to have right at Luluga under existing male tribes of GALISUU authority.
8. 	Court belief that C Kwasitee not have any connection to related to any female of Luluga (Maeasi) Not even own any parcel or land, Therefore not perform any sacrifice. Custom feast at Luluga (Maeasi).
9. 	Court belief that you Cornilus Kwasitee TEU only stay with LOFOLANGA male descendants of SINORO who married woman of GALISUU tribe who settled at descendants Luluga till his son C. Kwasitee (ptff) today. Since your father stay under custom permission of LOFOLANGA. Court agreed but SHOULD NOT claim ownership of any parcel of land within Maeasi. Luluga (parcel). Court resume to pass decision at 2 p.m. 13/4/92.
DECISION:
Court disqualifeid the claim/boundaries of plaintiffs claim in this. Both plaintiffs 1 and 2 not qualified to claim ownership of and parcel of land within Maeasi. (Luluga).
Court agreed they can use Iuluga parcel of land under the existing male tribes of GALISU'U authority as laid in the 1985 Court case decision. Court certified Siruabaaba for FUNILOFO and MEASI. Any new development Plaintiff 1 and 2 want to make seek permission from Defendant Siru.
Right to explain. Appeal within 90 days as from today 13/4/92 expired on 3/7/92.
Court officials: 
P Maekiria – Vice president 
N. Osifela – Court Member
Philip Silas – Court Clerk (M).