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

Pun v Pun [2009] WSSC 6 (5 February 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

SUI CHENG PUN of Vaitele, Businesswoman
Plaintiff

AND:

PELUSA CHENG PUN, of Vaitele, Taxi Driver
Defendant

Counsels: Mr FK Ainuu for the plaintiff
Defendant unrepresented

Hearing: 5 February 2009

Decision: 5 February 2009

DECISION OF NELSON J.

The Plaintiff in this case brings an action to evict the defendant who is her brother from land situated at Vaitele described as:

ALL that piece or pacel of land containing an area of one rood (0a.1r.00p) more or less situated inland of Vaitele in the District of Tuamasaga described as Parcel 3666 being part of Parcel 1312 Flur XI Upolu and all of the land now registered in VOLUME 27 FOLIO 124 of the Land Register of Samoa as the same is more particularly delineated on Plan 5214 deposited in the Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Natural Resources Environment & Meteorology (MNREM) Apia.

The land is freehold land and was previously registered to the plaintiff and defendants father Mr Lila Ah Bing. It appears from what I have heard that the land was family land occupied by the Ah Bing family which of course includes both the plaintiff and the defendant. It also appears the plaintiff spent some time living in New Zealand but in about 2006 at her mothers request she returned to Samoa to look after her sick father.

By Deed of Conveyance dated 16th August 2006 the father gifted the land to the plaintiff. The relevant deed of gift was registered in the Samoa Land Register Volume 27 Folio 124 under No. 26712 on 29 August 2006. Registration completed the transfer of legal title from the plaintiff's father to the plaintiff and as explained to the defendant who is not represented by counsel and to the other parties in these proceedings, it means the plaintiff became as from that date sole owner of the property. And as registered owner she is entitled to exercise alone and without fetter the full legal rights of a registered owner of freehold land. These legal rights include the right if she so wishes to evict any person from the land or bar any person from the land including her brother the defendant or even her parents if she so desires.

The plaintiff's mother gave evidence for the defence in this matter and told the court that the plaintiff tricked her father into signing over ownership of the land and that the father in 2006 did not understand what he was signing. And therefore the plaintiff should not be regarded as the owner of the families land. She also said that the father wants the land returned to him. Strictly speaking the father should have appeared and told those things to the court today himself, but I have listened to this evidence from the mother even though it is irrelevant to these proceedings because the defendant and his mother are not represented by a lawyer. But as explained to the defendant and his mother if that is the wish of the father, then he should take steps to try and set aside that 2006 deed of gift from him to his daughter. I have also counselled that they seek legal advice on the matter and made it clear to them that these present proceedings are not the appropriate vehicle for such a challenge to be embarked upon. All the court is concerned with today is whether or not the plaintiff's rights as registered legal owner should be given effect to and to what extent. I have also explained to the defendant in response to his questions that normally an owners rights in respect of freehold land extends to any permanent fixtures such as a house that may be situated on the land.

There is nothing in the evidence before the court today to justify not issuing the eviction order sought by the plaintiff. It is very sad that a sister should find it necessary to evict her brother from what was previously family land but I take it from what I have heard that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not good and will probably not be improved by this decision of the court. However the law is clear a registered legal owner can evict or bar any one from his/her freehold property and there is no legal impediment or justification arising from the evidence to refuse the plaintiffs application.

The application is accordingly granted and an eviction order is to issue against the defendant and members of his immediate family, such eviction to take place within seven (7) days from today's date. There will also issue an injunction forbidding those parties from re-entering the land following eviction and prohibiting them from removing any permanent structures or buildings from the land. There will be no order as to costs and I hope in due course the parties can reconcile their differences and move on because at the end of the day "toto, ivi and aano" (flesh, blood and bone) are worth much more than any piece of dirt.

JUSTICE NELSON