Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Local Court of Solomon Islands

Longanimala v Kale [2018] SBLC 1; Land Case No 2 of 2016 (27 May 2018)

IN THE NGELA LOCAL COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT
Solomon Islands

Land Case No: 02 of 2016

In the Matter of; TANAMADARA, KOLE, TANAKO & NGALIGABU CUSTOMARY LAND.

Between:

Samson Longanimala
Plaintiff/Applicant

And:

Fredrick Kale
Defendant/Respondent

Before: Charles Vuda -------- President (Ag)
Charles Leve --------- Member
John sisastrait ------- Member
Wesley Ramo ------- Clerk

Date of Hearing: 24^th -25^th May 2018
Venue: Mothers Union, Tulagi

________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

1. Introduction

This is a land dispute over Tanamadara, Kole, Tanako, and Ngaligabu customary land. The dispute is between Samson Longanimala (Plaintiff) and Fredrick Kale (Respondent).

Both disputant said they represented Lahi tribe of Ngela. The plaintiff claims to be the legitimate owner over the said land in dispute, because the title and leadership was customarily transferred to him by his grandfather Longanimala from the blood line of Kole.

2. Issue

Whether the plaintiff has proved on Balance of Probability that he was the custodian and mandated to be the rightful elder where the title and leadership was customarily transferred to him in accordance with the custom of Ngela.

3. Rules/Law Apply

Section 12 of the Local Court Act Amendment (CAP 19) 1985, where this powers is exercised by the local court to decide such disputes when dealing with such matters of leadership issues or any other issues relating to customary land dispute.

The custom of Ngela is applicable in this jurisdiction since it is a recognized custom practice of land ownership and usage in general.

4. Agreed facts by both parties

The plaintiff begins with the history of Lahi tribe. Kulese is from the Lahi tribe lived in Vunuha in Ngela, where then the people of Komupapara of Guadalcanal came and paid Kulese to marry a man called Kaiku. They have two girls their names were Kole and Kosi. Kole return to Ngela while Kosi went to Malaita and got married there. These facts are not in dispute by both parties; this is because they both present same oral history, agreed that they originated from one blood lineage from Kulese the mother of Kole and Kosi were both parties originated from.

5. Plaintiff’s case.

The dispute part of this case is where the main argument based on the family tree of both disputant. This is where the claim of dispute originated. The plaintiff contended that he was from the line of Kole while Respondent came from the line of Kosi. The Plaintiff accorded the customary rights through Longanimala, since he was from the lineage of Titili a Lahi tribe woman. The Plaintiff mention something sounds like, Manalimanikilova was intended to be the sister of Longanimala, hence such information was kept from public, as far as custom is concern.

6. Respondent’s case

Firstly, the defendant raise objection against Plaintiff witness No: 3, Mr. Andrew Lape, the reason is because at the first hearing PW3 was with the defendant side. PW3 then collect all his history and all information regarding the land and now PW3 group with the Plaintiff side in this current dispute.

In contrast to the statement conceded by the plaintiff he then stated that the Respondent came from the line of Kole then to Gaoka then to Manemala. Then he add on said that the plaintiff came from Kulese to Kosi then to Titili, who give birth to Longanimala the grandfather of the plaintiff. Both of them were from the same Lahi tribe. The Respondent said that he should be the rightful owner since because he came from the matrilineal of Ngela custom. While, plaintiff came from the same tribe but in patrilineal system of Ngela custom.

The respondent stated to court that, Plaintiff brought up the dispute against Henry Hapa, but not him. According to chiefs decision respondent was the one whom the primary rights was given to him over the said lands in dispute.

7. Witnesses’ case

We turn to Pw1, Pw2 and Pw3. Both witnesses gave similar evidences base on the history of Kole.

Both witnesses (PW1), (PW2), and (PW3) they all presented their story and it is similar as the story presented by both plaintiff and Respondent base on the history of Kole. The facts adduce by witnesses was not disputed by the defendant, since that history presented by plaintiff witnesses was also the same history submitted by the defendant.

8. Evidence on Cross-examination

Plaintiff’s evidence during cross-examination

During the cross examination the Respondent asked the plaintiff which tribe he originated from, in response to the question, plaintiff stated that he is from Lahi tribe, he said he came from the line of a woman named - Titili, the daughter of Kole. Kole is the daughter of Kulese, these lines of females (women) originated from the Lahi tribe. He stated to the effect that Titili gave birth to his grandfather, Longanimala, but Longanimala did not have any sister. He further averred that because his grandfather (Longanimala) was the only child of Titili, in effect, this transferred to him the ownership right over these above said Lands.

Notwithstanding this above fact, the Respondent was not satisfied with the assertion made by the plaintiff to assume that he was from Lahi tribe, thus the Respondent then asked the plaintiff whether or not he was really originated from Lahi Tribe or Hogokiki Tribe. In response to this question, the plaintiff then confirmed to the court that he was from Hogokiki tribe through her grandmother that she was from Hogokiki tribe, because in Ngela the family line falls through matrilineal system. In relation to this question the court in affirming the plaintiffs position, asked the same question to the plaintiff, which tribe is he really from, Manoga tribe or Hogokiki tribe, in response the plaintiff said that he is from Hogokiki tribe, but he claimed Manoga tribe on the basis that his grandfather (Longanimala) originated from there and because his grandfather did not have any sister, the right to claim the ownership is still there and available, that is why he claimed these said lands.

Respondent’s evidence during cross-examination

During the cross-examination the plaintiff asked the defendant why he did not cultivate the other portions of lands, in response the defendant told the plaintiff that they are family lineage, so all this portion of lands is allowed for any one of them to use it for gardening. Plaintiff continue on questioning the defendant whether he knows the secret of their family. In response the defendant averred that he do not have the right to talk about that issue, he merely based only on genealogy.

Court stating a sentence in defendant submission averred that Kole was welcomed by a chief, to live with him in these said lands, court probed the defendant whether or not any ceremony are commemorate on behalf of Kole’s arrival, in response the defendant said he wasn’t sure whether or not any ceremony are organized, but there was a present (nilau) Kole received from the chief. Court also asked the defendant whether he identifies his sub-tribe. In response the defendant said no, but he principally knows that he is from Lahi tribe.

9. Common usage or custom

In respect to the Ngela custom, a male person who originated out of a female lineage also attain the right to ownership or even claim ownership right to any land simply on the fact that he was born or originated out of a female, but to continue with such lineage from a male out of a male lineage there must firstly, consultation to all the people of that particular tribe, secondly, the acceptance and concession from his father and lastly, there should be huge ceremonial gathering and feast (vangavanga ni logoana na mana tana tamaga) organized to commemorate that fact that the male (son) is now conferred with the right equal to that of a female lineage and as such will give him the right to live in the land owned by his father.

10. Evidence from plaintiff regarding custom

During cross examination the court also asked the plaintiff whether or not his grandfather organized such an occasion, in his response, the plaintiff said that there was no such thing happened.

Plaintiff stated in Court that he attempted to organize a ceremonial feast with the Respondent, he stated in Court that the Respondent was the one who failed to accept the occasion. In response, the Respondent averred that the purported ceremonial feast organized was not proper according to Ngela custom. The plaintiff should have consulted the Respondent and all the people of the tribe to attend such occasion, it was not the case, since plaintiff appeared on his own with a pig’s thigh which the Respondent refused to accept.

11. Court Analysis

The plaintiff must prove that the Respondent was not justified in the circumstances it was reasonable to his claim regarding the title of leadership.

This court has found that the Respondents rights were reasonable and we have found that the plaintiff did not prove his claim regarding the title and leadership of the tribe. And so we satisfied in the balance of probability that the Respondent have proven him that he should be right person of taking such leadership title of the Lahi tribe where he belong, based on the Matrilineal system of Ngela custom. We satisfied in the circumstances that the Respondent was is reasonable.

This court satisfied the plaintiff therefore have not disproved his claim of leadership in the balance of probability. We therefore find that the Respondent is the legitimate to be the head of the Lahi tribe through the lineage of Kulese.

Through scrutinizing the above facts both parties in dispute were talking about leadership issue base on the Family tree. Other means of tradition to deal with the custom of the land was not orally submitted hence merely base on the issue of the leadership of the tribe. These principles are particularly relevant in the settlement of dispute, although depends on the type of issue in the dispute. Briefly, they are issues that comes before the chief’s hearings and the Local Court.

Having analyze the above issues presented to the court, the current Ngela Local Court panel give its decision as follows;

12. DECISION
    
    • 12.1. That Fredrick Kale is the legitimate and right person to take up the leadership title of the tribe of Lahi through Matrilineal system of Ngela custom.
      
    • 12.2. That Samson Longanimala has the secondary rights through patrilineal system of Ngela custom.
      
    • 12.3. That Samson Longanimala must consult Fredrick Kale for any such activity or development in the above said land in dispute.
      
    • 12.4. Parties to bear their own cost.
      

Signed and endorsed this day, 27^th May 2018

.......................................
Charles Vuda – President (Ag)

........................................
Charles Leve – Member

..........................................
John Sisastrait – Member

........................................
Wesley Ramo – Clerk

Right of appeal within 3 months.