IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)	Civil  Case No. 25/3208  SC/CIVL  	

AND:	Malasikoto Family
Claimant
	
AND:	Damien Boe
First Defendant
	
AND:	Custom Land Management Unit
Second Defendant
 	
AND:	Silas Vatoko, Nakmau Sambo, Edwin Malas & Dee- Jones Vatoko
Third  Defendants
	
AND:	John Amos and Cindy Amos
Fourth Defendants
	
AND:	The Director of Lands
Fifth Defendant	

Before:	Justice Oliver A. Saksak
	
In Attendance:	Mr Willie Daniel for the Claimants
Mr Edward Nalyal for Third Defendants 
Mrs Mary Grace Nari for Fourth Defendants 
Mr Freddie Bong for First, Second and Fifth Defendants
	
Date of Hearing : 
Date of Decision :	11th December 2025
 11th December 2025	

DECISION 

1.	I heard all Counsel at 10:30am today in relation to 2 applications, one filed by Mr Daniel on 9/12/2025 at 3:25pm, and the other filed by Mr Nalyal on 10/12/2025 at 4:30pm.

2.	 The application by Mr Daniel seeks an order restraining the First Defendant from enforcing his decision made on 8th December 2025 but which is contained in his letter of 12  December 2025. The second order sought is to restrain the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants from relying on the decision dated 8th December 2025. The third order is to maintain the orders of 28 October 2025. The fourth order sought is for the Court to order that Jimme Malasikoto  and Freddie Malasikoto be inserted into the new certificate as representatives of Chief Silu Malasikoto. Alternatively, they sought an order that the First Defendant’s conduct at the meeting held on 2nd December 2025 was unlawful and to order a new meeting to be held in compliance with the orders of 28tth October 2025.

3.	The application is supported by the sworn statements of Freddie Malasikoto as to urgency and of Kalpa Taea.

4.	 Mr Willie filed written submissions at 10:15am on 11/12/2025 just before the scheduled hearing.

5.	Mr Nalyal’s application seeks an order that the orders dated 28th October 2025 be set aside and Counsel filed a sworn statement by Silas Vatoko in support of the application. He filed a response on 10th December 2025 objecting to the application.

6.	 Mr Blake made oral submissions supporting Mr Nalyal’s application.

7.	Mr Bong informed the Court the Fifth defendant would simply abide by orders of the Court.

8.	I have considered the materials placed before me in relation to the application. I have considered all submissions made to me by Counsel, oral and written.

9.	 The Judgment made is clear in paragraph 34 that the orders of 28th October 2025 were to be maintained until a 6H meeting was held.

10.	That meeting was held on 2nd December 2025. Unfortunately there was no Consensus reached because of the disagreement over the numbers of representatives to be inserted. The claimants proposed four representatives, the second defendant accepted or proposed only two, which the claimants did not accept. There was a stalemate resulting in the First Defendant adopting a fallback position by making his decision contained in his letter of 12th December 2025.  Presumably the date is wrong but as there was no instruction by Mr Bong and Mr Boe not present, there was no clarification on the date. However it is clear and accepted the actual decision was made on 8th December 2025.

11.	The same paragraph records also that common sense should prevail to facilitate a new 6H meeting to bring about some finality. However it appears to me it was the claimant’s grouping who took a hardline stand to maintain their proposal of four (4) members of the family to be inserted as representatives. They could simply have backdown and accepted the Second Defendant’s proposal of two (2). They did not, therefore they were the cause of the outcome of the meeting held on 2nd December 2025.

12.	In my view it is now the claimants who have come to the Court with unclean hands.

13.	 Accordingly I refuse the orders they seek in their application and dismiss the application.

14.	As for the application by Mr Nalyal, the application is allowed. The Orders dated 28th October 2025 are hereby set aside.

15.	 Costs are to remain in the cause. 

DATED at Port Vila this 11th day of December 2025
BY THE COURT

Hon. Justice Oliver A Saksak