IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SAMOA
Pune v Vaeluaga [2016] WSCA 9

Case name: 	Pune v Vaeluaga 	
		
Citation: 	[2016] WSCA 9	
		
Decision date: 	31 August 2016	
		
Parties: 	KIRITA MARIA KOLOTITA PUNE (Appellant) and Administrators of the Estate of MOLIOO TEOFILO VAELUAGA (Respondent)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	31 August 2016	
		
File number(s): 	CA16/15	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Honourable Justice Blanchard
Honourable Justice Panckhurst
Honourable Justice Nelson	
		
On appeal from:	Supreme Court	
		
Order:	The appeal is dismissed.
 There will be no order as to costs.	
		
Representation: 	O Woodroffe for the appellant
P Fepuleai for the respondent	
		
Catchwords: 	Land dispute – deeds of conveyance 	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

CA 16/15

BETWEEN:

 	KIRITA MARIA KOLOTITA PUNE
Appellant

AND:

		Administrators of the Estate of MOLIOO TEOFILO VAELUAGA
Respondent

Court:	
Honourable Justice Blanchard
Honourable Justice Panckhurst
Honourable Justice Nelson
Hearing: 	31 August 2016
Counsel:	
O Woodroffe for the appellant
P Fepuleai for the respondent
Judgment: 	31 August 2016
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
[1]	When this matter came before this Court in February of this year ([2016] WSCA 4), the appeal was adjourned to allow time for, inter alia, the trial judge to give a  reasoned decision arising from the 2003 hearing or direct a re-hearing. A reasoned decision has been delivered on 29 August 2016. In it the Chief Justice has concluded that the deeds of conveyance by way of gift were obtained under undue influence. However, the Chief Justice declined to grant the declaration and order sought by the plaintiffs until he has heard counsel on the position of any third party mortgagee. 
[2]	Counsels appearing before us were in agreement that the present appeal has now been overtaken by events, including the unfortunate death of the appellant and that the proceeding should be progressed in the Supreme Court. Mrs. Woodroffe has signalled that there may be applications by her client for an order that Mr. Fepulea’i should not represent any party in the proceedings. Any such application should be made in the Supreme Court.
[3]	Subject to that last matter, and to Mrs. Woodroffe obtaining fresh instructions from the heirs of the late Mrs. Pune, the next step in the Supreme Court would appear to be the joinder of any third parties necessary for the working out of orders consequential or the decision of the Chief Justice. An early hearing and decision upon those matters appears desirable. 
[4]	The appeal is dismissed as it no longer has any purpose. There will be no order as to costs.

Honourable Justice Blanchard
Honourable Justice Panckhurst
Honourable Justice Nelson