Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

  Download original PDF

Moses v Lus [2006] VUSC 111; Land Appeal Case (7 June 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

LAND APPEAL CASE NO.

BETWEEN:

CHIEF JEFFREY MOSES
(First Appellant)

CHIEF LUS
(Second Appellant)

ALEXANDER SAMSON
(Third Appellant)

VILE
(Fourth Appellant)

BOAZ
(Fifth Appellant)

DECISION

The decision in the land appeal from "MATANTAS" is now ready. I am sorry that you have all had to wait so long for it. Unfortunately, the government, whether this one or the previous two, regard Vila as more important than Santo and I have been required to work there instead of here where I should have been. By the end of this week there will be no judge again in Santo.

The full reasons for the decision are long. I will not read them out now but you each may have a copy of them as soon as they have been put into typed form.

The decision of the island court is hereby quashed. This is in the main because the records kept by the island court of the hearing were not adequate. Had they been adequate there would have been no need for this lengthy hearing. In future the island court, should not leave any more land cases until the staff are in post capable of keeping proper records.

The court has heard the cases on behalf of all the families involved. Their claims each overlap. Each one cannot succeed. The court has therefore examined the evidence presented and having considered it separately on behalf of each claimant and then as a whole comes to this conclusion (the reasons for which appear in the full judgement).

This court therefore declares the land to be owned by FAMILY LUS AND FAMILY MOSES.

Family represented by Chief Jeffrey Moses:

As represented on the survey map – boundary Vikakara

Lorum Creek

White Stone

Vunarira

Family represented by Chief Lus – Lorum Creek

Old Natapoa Tree

White Stone

Family represented by Alexander Samson – no ground inside the area involved.

Family represented by Vile – no ground inside the area involved.

Families represented by (Boaz) (Lan and Haopu). – no ground inside the area involved.

Custom ownership means that land is held in trust by the declared custom owner for the benefit of all the people who originate from or live in that area. It does not mean that the benefit of the land goes to any individual person. If that were allowed to happen then there may well be nothing left for the successors.

It is like the Crown Jewels of England. The Queen may use them whilst she remains the monarch but she may not sell them but must keep them for the next monarch. The same must apply to a custom owner, who has a duty to keep his land in tact for the next generation.

Through the evidence it is also clear that some people, who it is now known have no custom ground in this area, have occupied parts of it. As those people have occupied the area for many years it is not now just and equitable for them to leave that right of occupation even though they do not own the land.

This court therefore directs that those people who occupy land within this area but who are not custom owners negotiate leases with the declared custom owners. This court further directs that the declared custom owners shall not unreasonably with-hold their consent to such leases.

In the event that negotiation cannot result in an agreed lease the court will impose leases so it is in everybody's interest that you agree leases.

Rent will have to be paid in future by leases if they wish to remain in occupation and that rent must be applied for the benefit of all the family owning the ground, not just one individual.

COSTS: No order for costs between the parties.

E P GOLDSBROUGH
Supreme Court Judge