IN THE LAND COURT OF TONGA 
NUKU’ALOFA REGISTRY 

LA 6 of 2016

BETWEEN	:		VAKAUTAPOLA LAUAKI   
 
Plaintiff

AND		:		LUSIA VAKA’UTA  
First Defendant

SOSEFO VATIKANI
	Second Defendant  

VAISINGANO VATIKANI 
					Third Defendant 

MINISTER OF LANDS 
	
					Third Party  

BEFORE PRESIDENT PAULSEN  

To:	Mr S. Tu’utafaiva for the plaintiff  
	Mr H. Tatila for the first and second defendants
	Mr ‘A. Kefu SC and Ms ‘E. ‘Akau’ola for the third party  

Hearing:		 		5 and 6 September 2017
Ruling and Consent Orders:	11 September 2017

RULING AND CONSENT ORDERS 

[1]	This action was heard over two days.  At the conclusion of the hearing I 	made directions for the presentation of submissions by Counsel.  I have 	now been advised that the parties have agreed on consent orders which 	in the circumstances of this case I consider entirely appropriate.  So that 	the reader may understand the consent orders I set out a very brief 	statement of the relevant facts. 

[2]	The plaintiff’s parents were Siupeli Laukai (Siupeli) and ‘Amelia Lauaki 	(‘Amelia).  In 1929 Siupeli was granted a large town allotment of 3R 	10.2P called Loto’api at Lapaha (Register of Town Allotments, Book 5 	Folio 199/85) and a tax allotment at Toafa (Blk 78/97 Lot 31).  Siupeli 	died on 18 March 1978. 

[3]	‘Amelia claimed and was granted Siupeli’s town and allotments.  She 	subsequently subdivided the town allotment and from that a town 	allotment of 1R 24P was granted to Sovea ‘Iongi Sipueli (Sovea).  Sovea 	is the eldest son of Siupeli and ‘Amelia.  ‘Amelia retained the balance of 	the town allotment for herself.

[4]	‘Amelia died on 4 December 2002.  On 22 August 2003, the plaintiff 	(Vakautapola) lodged a claim to the town and tax allotments as Siupeli’s 	heir.  He stated that – 
		a.	he was the heir to the allotments;
		b.	he was the registered holder of a town allotment at Hoi, 			Tongatapu; 
		c.	he elected to register the town allotment at Lapaha and 			that his town allotment at Hoi be transferred to his son, 			Sione Fotu Lauaki.  
	
[5]	The Minister accepted Vakautapola’s claim on 2 September 2003 and he 	was granted the town and tax allotments although at the present time 	he has not been issued with deeds of grant. 

[6]	Vakautapola commenced this action against the defendants in April 2016 	to remove them from his town allotment.  For present purposes it is 	sufficient to say that the defendants have been living on the land for 	many years and claim that permission to do so was given by Siupeli.  	The defendants opposed Vakautapola’s claim and sought cancellation of 	his grant of the town allotment.  They also challenged the subdivision of 	Siupeli’s town allotment and the grant to Sovea but Sovea was not 	joined as a party to this action. 

[7]	During the hearing it was established that Vakautapola was not Siupeli’s 	heir.  Siupeli’s heir is the second son of Siupeli and ‘Amelia by the name 	of Lopeti Lauaki ‘Iongi.  Vakautapola is the third son.  Vakautapola had 	believed he was the heir because he was the first son born during his 	parent’s marriage.  However Siupeli and ‘Amelia had two sons before 	him.  The eldest son, Sovea, was born while Siupeli was married to his 	first wife and was illegitimate.  The second son, Lopeti, was born in 1944 	prior to his parent’s marriage but after Siupeli had divorced his first wife.  	Consequently although born illegitimate 	Lopeti became legitimated 	upon 	his parents’ marriage in September 1948 by operation of the Legitimacy 	Act.  Vakautapola was therefore wrong 	to claim Siupeli’s town and tax 	allotments as heir. 

[8]	In light of this development and following the conclusion of the hearing 	Mr. Tu’utafaiva, wrote to the Court advising that this matter could be 	disposed of on the basis that Vakautapola’s registration of the town 	allotment in dispute be cancelled or revoked, that the matter be referred 	back to the Minister to hear the parties before any decision is made to 	re-grant that land and that costs be awarded to the first and second 	defendants to be taxed if not agreed.  On receipt of this letter I saw all 	Counsel in Chambers and they confirmed the parties’ consent to orders 	being made in these terms. 

	Results 

[9]	Accordingly I make the following orders by consent: 

	[9.1]	The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed and there is judgment for the first 		and second defendants. 

	[9.2]	 The first and second defendants’ counterclaim is allowed to the 		extent that the grant to the plaintiff of the balance of the town 		allotment at Lapaha formerly granted to Siupeli Lauaki is set 		aside.  Before re-granting the land the Minister should hear from 		the plaintiff and the defendants along with any other person who 		may wish to apply for the land. 

	[9.3]	The first and second defendants are awarded the costs of the 		action to be fixed by the Registrar if not agreed. 

[10]	There are two final comments I should make.  Although the defendants 	challenged Sovea’s grant he was not made a party to the action and the 	Court could therefore never have made the orders that the defendants 	sought in respect of his land.  Secondly, the plaintiff’s entitlement to 		Siupeli’s tax allotment was not in issue in this action and I make 		no orders in respect of that land.  

	
        O.G. Paulsen
NUKU’ALOFA:  11 September 2017			        PRESIDENT