IN THE BELLONA LOCAL COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Land case No.03/01

BETWEEN:

MATTHIAS TAUPONGI
Plaintiff

AND:

JACK PUIA
Defendant

IN THE MATTER OF: ANGOHI, KAGUA and SA"AMOA LANDS
JUDGMENT
The matter in dispute is between Matthias Taupongi, plaintiff and Jack Puia, defendant. The case had been first referred to the chiefs' council in 2001. The court accepted to deal with the matter at this stage because in its view, section 12 (1) (a) & (b) had been fulfilled. This provision stipulates that "...no Local court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determined any customary land dispute unless it is satisfied that..." the dispute had been first referred to the chiefs and all traditional means of solving the dispute is exhausted. The Court considered that the requirement of the Law had already been applied and there is no need to refer the matter under sect 13(e) of the Local Court Act.
Before the Court considers all evidences from both parties, it reminds itself that all evidences are weighed on the balance of probability. The Court also warns itself to abide by sect. 16 of the Local Court Act. This section provides that "...a Local Court shall administer the law and custom of islanders prevailing in the area of jurisdiction...". In that the Court must be careful that the ownership of land in Bellona is inline with the land tenure system practised by the Bellona people. The Court therefore, focuses on the evidence given by the parties.
The plaintiff M. Taupongi in his evidence stated that he was the son of Tasikona. He told the Court that his late father Tasikona owned Angohi, Kagua and Sa'amoa lands. Those pieces of lands were given to late Tasikona by Hakapauika, the father of Tasikona and the Defendant. The plaintiff stated that his late father used to cultivate Angohi, Kagua and Sa'amoa lands during his life time. The plaintiff further stated that when two of the disputed lands were used as part of the Bellona air strip, his late father received compensation for the lands used. The plaintiff also tendered a map on which Tasikona's name was written against a block of land of the airstrip. It was marked as Exhibit MT1. The plaintiff also tendered a copy of the compulsory Acquisition Notice. It was marked Exhibit MT2.
The plaintiff further stated that according to the culture, inheritances are passed from the father to son. He further mentioned that he took his late father's position to take care of what used to be owned by Tasikona. During cross-examination, the plaintiff told the court that the stories about the ownership of the lands in dispute were told by his aunty namely Tekapia. The plaintiff also mentioned he did not have any piece of land among the lands mentioned in his statements because the defendant claimed all of the lands.
Plaintiff witness or PW, Emily Tekapia told the court that she appeared in court because the defendant took control of all the lands. She further told the court that she was and is the wife of late Tasikona who owned the lands. PW further told the court that Tasikona owned Sa'amoa and Angohi. During cross-examination, PW stated that she was not present at the time when the lands in dispute were shared between the defendant and Wiate husband. She also stated that the defendant Jack Puia is the first born son of Hakapauika.
We turn to the Defendant's case
The defendant gave evidence under oath and stated that his family tree begun from Saungongo who was the founder, then Kumingau to Hakapauika. Hakapauika was and is the defendant's late father. He further told the court that his brothers were died and he himself survived until the day his other brother Tasikona was born.
The defendant further stated that his late father first consulted him when he (Hakapauika) wanted to give two piece of lands to the plaintiffs father namely Tasikona. The defendant further told the court that only two piece of lands were given to Tasikona. They are Hatangenga and Hageuta. The defendant told the court that even if he was disable, he was given five [5] piece of lands by his late father Hakapauika. He stated that his late father told Maunghu, a kinsman of J. Puia that even though he was disabled he was and is the first born son. Hence his late father could not give away any piece of land given to him.
The defendant further stated that he was disagreed with his late brother adopting M. Taupongi as a son. He told the court that he wrote a letter, informing his late brother, Tasikona that if he was going to adopt M. Taupongi, he would reclaim the land of Angohi from him. The defendant also told the court that if M. Taupongi had returned back to him after he had grown up, he would have given a piece of land for him. He stated to the court that M. Taupongi lived apart from him for 32 years and only returned back to dispute the lands in question.
During cross-examination, the defendant stated that he reclaimed the lands given to Tasikona because he was his real brother. He further told the court that he owned Angohi, Kagua and Sa'amoa lands. He stated during examination that it was not right in their culture to adopt a cousin brother as a son.
By studying all the evidences produced to court by both parties, the court must take into account that all evidences are weighed on the balance of probability. The issue before the court now is, who should be the rightful owner of the lands in question since both parties are related to each other.
The court after having considered all evidences accepted the defendant's evidence as worth believing. In that, the court took into account of the fact that the defendant J. Puia is the real brother of Tasikona. Not only that, the defendant as the first born son was recognised by their late father Hakapauika as the one to inherit the birth right under the land tenure system practiced on Bellona. The court accepted that in the culture and tradition of Bellona, the first born son always qualify to inherit any property from his father.
The court accepted that for the defendant to reclaim any lands once owned by his late brother is in accordance to the custom and culture of the Bellona people. However, there are some exceptions where the deceased person does not bear a child, especially a son nor has a brother then the lands would be handed down to an adopted child. This can be applied in this case. Also the court tends to believe the defendant more than the plaintiff due to his very old age. The court considered that older men knew more about culture and custom. In that, it accepted the defendant's point that the culture does not allow one to adopt a brother as a son.
The court also considered all evidences given by the plaintiff. It found that the plaintiffs evidences not worth believing as he claimed himself to stand in the position of late Tasikona, the real brother of the defendant. The court also consider evidences given by the plaintiffs witness and found that the witness tend to dwell mainly about the adoption of the plaintiff rather than ownership of the lands in question. The court also takes into account of the last statement given by the plaintiff. In that the plaintiff admitted before the court that he does not have any piece of lands amongst the lands mentioned in his statement. The court therefore considered this as very important to determine this case. It then decided to be in favour of the defendant.
Having considered all these evidences, the court finally made the following orders:
COURT ORDER
1) 	The Court is in favour of Mr. Jack Puia as the owner of Angohi, Kagua and Sa'amoa.
2) 	The Defendant Jack Puia has the sole authority to exercise his right as to the ownership of the above said lands.
3) 	No order for costs
Right of Appeal to CLAC is within [3] months from today's date.
Dated at Ngongona this 17th Day of April 2007.
Henry Kabei	signed	President	
Osely ExJames	signed	member	
Bix Paul	signed	member	
Paul Ngaingeri	signed	secretary/LCO