IN THE MALAITA LOCAL COURT

LAND CASE NO. 2/96

Name of land in dispute: TAKIBAKWA

BETWEEN:

1) S.TATALU OF BASI'I VILLAGE, NORTH MALAITA BOX A2 AUK
2) BANARBAS WANEFSOKWA OF IRIDOFE VILLAGE (FOONDO)
Plaintiff

v

1) ELISON LIFUAGI OF ORUKALIA VILLAGE, (FULIFOE)
2) ALBAN LEAGA OF GWALALAMOA VILLAGE 
Defendant

DECREE
JUDGEMENT/CORT FINDING
1. 	Court finds that Mr. Tatalu plaintiff one (1) (spokeman) and B. Wanefaekwa plaintiff two (2) both descended of Bulithanofanuabala male lineage of Takibakwa. Then Mr. Tatalu claimed he descended through heirs of Boi on female linealogy of DINGAUSIA (f) and FALEIA (f). Court also finds that Elison Lifuasi and Alban Longa claimed they both Banarbas Wanofaekwa are the living descendants of RODOLIU through the two sons KURUFANUA and BURA on male line of Takibakwa (see C4/MAL/54 D. Court Exhibit 7.)
2. 	This Court also finds that since 1954 case David Irofunua defended his tribesmen of Takibakwa land. Then late Lifuasi also defended his tribal land during recent cases which Banarbas Wanefaekwa, genealogy appears on those cases.
3. 	Steward. Tatalu made a claim to connect himself with Wanefaokwa's genealogy on female lines of Dingausia and Faleia (f). In defending the plaintiffs' claim of female lines to Banarbas Wanefaeka and Elison Lifuasi malc line DW 1 & 2 defended that those women mentioned by Plaintiff one (1) Tatalu. Mr. Jeriel Iroilalo also denied Tatalu made a false claim he did not descended of Faleia but DW1 J.D. Falaia is the living descendant of this woman and David Baesi the -uncle of Reni descended of Mrs Dingausia (f) who married to Bofamua of Mamafilu tribe.
4. 	Court finds that in previous cases 1979 - 1993 Mr late Jeriel Lifuasi defended their tribal land Takibalawa other tribesmen who claimed portion of land within Takibakwa in rialaita customary land ownership male line should have known his female lines by maintaining its relationship tie with his female lines whenever tracing his malo genealogy must mention his female line as well.
5. 	In Malaita customary land ownership male libne should have known his female lines by maintaining its relationship tie with his female lines whenever tracing his male geneology must mention his female line as well. In his particular land case you Mr. Tatalu just established your new female lineage to Banarbas Wenefaeknwa of Takibakwa and Elison Lifuasi of both male lines.
6. 	Court finds that plaintiffs’ witnesses never denied Elison Lifuasi from being a male member of Takibakwa. They did not mention S. Tatalu too blood related to Banarbas Wanefaekwa as they themselves claimed their relationship tie to Wanefaekwa and their female linealogies which they descended.
7. 	Court finds that Mr. Tatalu established his new female line to the male line of Banarbas Wanefaekwa and Elison Lifuasi and Alban Leaga following the two mentioned women by the names Falein and Dingausia. DW1 Jezriel Iroialo Dadii defended his woman Faleia (f) that Tatalu not descended but himself is the living descendant and Dw 2 David Baesi of Magwarefu village defended his woman Dingausia (f) married to Bofanua of Manafiu tribe which he is the living descendant of Reni’s line ( see case no. C4/MALA/54. Court D – Ex 7- ) Therefore, this Local Court doubted S. Tatalu’s new connection (on female) to B. Wanefaekwa’s male geneology.
8. 	In Plaintiff’s summary stated that in 1979 – 1993 cases the written documents B. Wanefaekwa his name did not appear or written on the decision because he was not a party to any of those cases. In 1954 he was a small boy that time and during other recent land cases laste Jezriel Lifuasi defended their tribal land Tabikawa MC Case no 160/90 13/8/91 judgment 19/8/91. And today’s case B. Wanefaekwa did not give any evidence himself but you Steward Tatalu took up the case and separating him from his male partners Elison Lifuasi and Alban Leaga.
9. 	This Court also found that B. Wanefaekwa do not dispute with his male or female lines during the previous cases but others claim their right over their portion of lands within the boundary of Takibkwa land (e.g.) Case No. 59/79. Ben Kanabaea Vrs. A. Taba’ania Lumagwai tribal land within Takibkwa MC No. 160/90 on 13/8/91. Page 2.
10. 	Court found that Plaintiffs witnesses from different tribes come to live on the disputed land Takibakwa by some reasons of intermarriages and female of B. Wanefaekwa’s tribesmen of male linealogy of Takibawka. These witnesses had mentioned that they blood related to B. Wanefaekwa and they did not mention S. Tatalu blood related to B. Wanefaekwa on male line.
11. 	During land survey plaintiff’s 1 denied Maolifu’s tribesmen have no properties on the land but defendants said that we the living descendants of Maolifu have existing properties before and after 1954 land case. Plaintiffs said these properties planted after the 1954 case.
12. 	This Court finds that 1954 Court case Irofanua & Iroakalo were not representing the following tribes as mentioned by S. Tatalu. Tribes Thangiabu, Afoa, Bakwa’abu, Manafiu and Lakele. They (Iroakalo & Irofanua) were against Nanafu tribe as they are true landowners of Takibakwa.
13. 	In 1954 case (C4/MAL/54) B. Wanefaekwa was a small boy and Bungu represented Bin in Court page 55. Court also found that S. Tatalu descended begot Firisua begot S. Tatalu and then Kolofanua’s descendant is Thaomomole Tatalu’s mother. Therefore you are already with the loosing party in 1954 C4/MAL/54. Therefore, this Court doubted S. Tatalu’s connection to the two women Faleia (f) and Dingausia (f) of Takibakwa tribe is not true.
During land surveying of the disputed land seems both men of the male lines pulling apart of the tambu sites we visited namely Furiai, Taluo, Maa, Kwakwaru and La’ano.
The boundaries of the disputed Takibakwa land are as follows:-
Point A- Gwalalamea goes inland to Fatanafiu passing Kwanafiu up and corner at Aenafura then across hill top passing Ma’a tambu site goes across Daudautalo then down the Aero river to its river mouth goes north along the sea coast to Gwalalamoa again.
DECISION: Elison Lifuasi, Alban Leaga and Banarbas Wanofaekwa and Olands are the primary landowners of Takibkwa. Binded under HC CC 160/90 and C4/MAL/54. Steward Tatalu’s claim of female line to Banarbas geneology has been dismissed.
R.O.A. Explained.
90 days or 3 months from now 12/2/98 – 12/5/98.
Court officials: 
J.S. Meke	VP
L.Ilimanu	CM
P. Maekiria	CM
Luciana Kebai	C/Clerk 12/2/98

Note: Defendants claimed expenses to be refunded by the Plaintiff the sum of three hundred eighty one dollars and fourty cents ($381.40) within 14 days from today 12/2/98 – 26/2/98. Receipts attached.