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

Lifuiasi v Basui [2021] SBLC 3; Land Case 5 of 2012 (26 April 2021)

IN MALAITA LOCAL COURT

AUKI MALAITA PROVINCE

SOLOMON ISLAND.

LAND CASE NO: 5 of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF: O’OBA SUSULAMAE LAND

BETWEEN: ELISON LIFUIASI, AND WALTER FALEKA PLAINTIFF

TAKIBAKWA TRIBE

AND: JONATHAN BASUI 1^st DEFENDANT

Preliminary Hearing

Date of Hearing: 9^th April 2021.

Time: 10: 02 AM.

Date of Ruling: 26^th April 2021

Introduction

In 1954 the said land in dispute had been heard before a land case c4/MAL/54, this is between Irofanua of Takibakwa tribe the plaintiff, and Talosui of Ma’anafiu tribe the defendant. In its ruling, the court ruled that the land known as Takibakwa belongs to the line of Irofanua, Wanefaekwa, and Iroakalo of the Takibakwa tribe.

In 1979, the same said land in disputed also heard by the Local Court, the parties to the case are Kanabaea of Manaafui tribe and Taba’ania of the Takibakwa tribe. On Local court’s determination Kanabaea of Manaafiu tribe lost to Taba’ania of Takibakwa tribe.

And again the said land in dispute was then heard by the High Court in 1991, Plaintiff Stephen Danitofea uses the name of the said land in disputed as Sisiufa –O’oba, but then he lost the case, and Lifuasi of Takibakwa tribe won it. The High Court ruling CC 160/ 90 HC bars Stephen Danitofea and Kanabaea of Maánafiu tribe from claiming any right within the area of the 1954 and 1979 cases and under the same judgment bound from interfering with any developments the Takibakwa Tribe or any members of his line may wish to make.

Another High Court case was also determined on 8th January 1993, Case No: 66 of 1992. This case is about the same said land as Takibakwa. It involved the same parties to case 160 of 1990. The defendant to the case is Eddie Dolainao and Frank Daefa. The high court made its ruling that Stephen Danitofea cannot represent these two defendants, they must appear on their own or seek the services of a solicitor.

Now the same said land was again determined by the NOFE House of Chiefs and given its determination in favor to Jonathan Basui which born female to the Akwaabu tribe as the true landowner of O’oba Susulimae land which in 1954 land case the same referred to as Takibakwa land. The disputed land case then referred to the Local Court by the plaintiff Mr. Elison Lifuasi and Walter Faleka, as case No: 5/2012.

Issue.

Whether the process of filing has satisfied the requirement provided in section 12 1, (a), (b), (c), 2 of the Local Court amended act (CAP) 1985.

Whether the said land O’oba Susulimae was a different land from Takibakwa land.

Whether the Plaintiff’s tribe has been already involved in the previous court cases over the land in dispute.

Rule Apply

Local Court Amendment Act (CAP 19) 1985 Section 12 1, (a), (b), (c), 2.

The principle of res-judicata.

The custom of Malaita.

Application.

Whether the process of filing has satisfied the requirement provided in the Local Court Amendment Act 1985, according to the courts finding the process of filing has satisfied the requirement provided in the Local Court Amendment Act 1985, which the aggrieved party was a person referred the matter to the Local Court.

Whether the said land O’oba Susulimae is a different Land from the land known as Takibakwa Land. This is a very important issue that this court must have carefully scrutinized. First, the Land known as Takibakwa has been through many court cases since 1954 till now. Second, along the way the Maánafiu tribe in 1991 case, they try to use a different name as Sisiufa O’oba to the land known as Takibakwa land.

And third, in this case, whether the said land O’oba susulimae is the same land as Takibakwa land which the Higher Court already bars from the tribe of Maánafiu to interfere.

Plaintiff Case.

Plaintiff pointed out that O’oba Susulimae is a different land from Takibakwa. The Land known as Takibakwa has been through many court cases since 1954 and they already had a decree of it in chiefs up to High Court. The High Court also bars any of the tribes of Maánafiu to bring up the same land again in court against the Takibakwa tribe.

Plaintiff’s Witness (Pw1) James Donga, in his statement, told the court that O’oba Susulimae is their virgin Land that never been through any court case, and it is a different land altogether from Takibakwa, the reason that he appears as a witness for the plaintiff, is because the defendant uses the name of his land to cover the different land. If they talked about the land Takibakwa he will not come to testify before the court.

In cross-examination from court to Pw1, the court asked whether the defendant is connected to O’oba Susulimae, in his answer Pw1 affirmed to court that the defendant Basui never connect to that land, and he has no right to talk about O’oba Susulimae. Court also asked Pw1 whether any boundary separates O’oba Susulimae and Takibakwa, he said yes the place which separates O’oba Susulimae from Takibakwa is Daudautalo to Maleakalo to the stream Nu’u and to Gwalalamoa. O’oba up to the bush side and Takibakwa down to the seaside.

Defendant Case.

When studying the document provided regarding the determination of the Nofe House of Chiefs, the Nofe House of Chiefs stated that O’oba Susulimae is the same land which in 1954 case referred to as Takibakwa land. In the submission provided by the defendant, he stated that the said land Takibakwa is a name or a given name to O’oba susulimae. He also mentioned that O’oba susulimae is the real name of the said land in dispute since 1954. By the cross-examination, the court asked the defendant, if you discover O’oba Susulimae, where is Takibakwa, in reply the defendant said Takibakwa is a name or a given name to O’oba Susulimae. In cross-examination, the court asked the defendant, if you were there in Oóba Susulimae for 24 generations and your forefathers attending court cases since 1954 why they did not raise the issue or object it at the first time, in reply he said my ancestor just stay in that land Oóba Susulimae.

Courts finding

Through the court’s analysis, the court found out that the defendant wants to use O’oba Susulimae to covered up the name Takibakwa, which means that the name Takibakwa should not be the name of the land, but it should be O’oba Susulimae.

Throughout the previous court cases since 1954, the name Takibakwa was used, if the real name is O’oba Susulimae, then why do they did not mentioned it or challenge it in any of the previous court cases, or whether the name is just known at this time. It is very interesting to know why the name just changes after so many years since 1954.

Whether the Defendant’s tribe has already been involved in the previous court cases over the said land in dispute. In previous court cases since 1954 Maánafiu tribe are those who challenged the Takibakwa tribe for the said land in dispute, and they lost their cases, that they try to change the name of the said land in dispute to another name to qualify them to challenge the Takibakwa tribe again. For example the high court case in 1991, the Maánafiu tribe used Sisiufa Oóba as the name of the land known as Takibakwa land.

Plaintiff Case

Through the preliminary hearing the plaintiff told the court that the defendant Mr. Jonathan Basui is from the Maánafiu tribe by the male lineage, he is a cousin to Stephen Danitofea, they are from the same tribe which the High Court has barred them not to raise the case again in the court or to challenge the Takibakwa tribe about the Takibakwa land. He also mentioned that this case is not new, because both parties are from the same tribe challenging them in the previous court cases, Mr. Basui is from the male lineage of the Maánafiu tribe and he is from the Takibakwa tribe that unchanged from the previous court cases.

Defendant case.

Prior to the defendant's submission, he stated that the land was owned by his female lineage of the Akwaabu tribe, and denying him from the Maánafiu tribe. He told the court because there is no existence of male lineage of the Akwaábu tribe, he will represent them or stand on behave of the Akwaabu tribe in the female lineage

That he should be the rightful owner of the land by female lineage. He also stated that the Akwaábu tribe is the first discoverer of the said land in dispute

Through cross-examination the court asked the defendant whether he relates to Danitofea, he confirmed to the court that yes but from a different tribe and not from the Akwa’abu tribe which he claimed that he stand on behave of them.

According to the statement of the defendant’s witnesses, they claimed the same thing that they all from the female lineage of the Akwaábu tribe, where there is a given plantation of Nalinut (Uniai) to them in the said land. They said the Nali nuts were given by their ancestor to her daughters. During cross-examination from court to defendant witnesses, the court asked them whether they know or related to the defendant, they all confirmed that all of them were born to four sisters, daughter of Fiukaule. Fiukaule a person whom the defendant told that he is from the Akwaabu tribe and is the last priest but did not have any son, so the right that he has regarding the ownership of the land he passes on to her daughters. Court also asked the defendant's witnesses regarding the male lineage of the defendant Mr. Basui. Dw3 and Dw4 confirmed to the court that Jonathan Basui is from the Maánafiu tribe, but claiming the land according to female lineage.

Courts Finding

Whether in custom, the right of a male lineage regarding ownership of a whole discovery land will automatically transfer to a female lineage, and whether the system of ownership of a discovery land in Malaita Custom follows the matrilineal system. With the careful reviewing of all the statements and the documents provided, this court was satisfied with the outcome of its decision. In our custom regarding the full discovery land, it is an error for the female lineage to claim the whole discovery land, but if there is a given portion of land the female lineage has the right to claim it. Regarding the ownership of land in Malaita customs, it follows the patrilineal system. Since that the defendant was from the Manafiu tribe, though he claimed the land by female lineage he still part of the Manafiu tribe which the order of the high court Bars them not to bring any case against the Takibakwa tribe.

This raised an important issue regarding the principle of res judicata as it is stated:

“The principle of res judicata seeks to promote the fair administration of justice and honesty and to prevent the law from abuse. The principle of res judicata applies when a litigant attempts to file a subsequent lawsuit on the same matter, after having received a judgment in a previous case involving the same parties”.

The principle of res judicata applies only to the parties or tribes involved or partaker in the previous court cases, whether you are a witness or complainant, or defendant the decision is binding you to raise again the same issue with the same parties involved.

Conclusion.

After carefully analyzing all the issues raised, this court concludes, that the land which the defendant change the name to Oóba Susulimae is the same land known as Takibakwa. If the real name of the said land in dispute is Oóba Susulimae then why didn’t challenge it in all previous court cases since 1954. This gives disbelief to this court about the name Oóba Susulimae, maybe this name is to qualify the defendant to raised again the same matter which the High Court Case 160 of 1990 and 66 of 1992 bonded his tribe not to interfered in anything about the land. This court satisfied that the land still has its original name as Takibakwa customary land.

Since that there is a confirmation that Jonathan Basui is a Male lineage of the Maánafiu tribe, this court satisfied that he also bonded under the res-judicata which the High Court already established for the tribe of Maánafiu.

Having considered the above issues and pieces of evidence presented to the court, the current Malaita Local Court panel gives its decision as follows.

Order.

1. The Nofe Biu Aofia House of Chiefs determination is set aside.
   
2. The land named as Takibakwa customary land is still stand.
   
3. The Takibakwa tribe are the rightful owner of the Takibakwa Customary land.
   
4. No order of cost.
   

Signe and endorsed this day: 26^th / 04 / 2021

Eddie Wasi: ___________________________ Vise President

Nelson Ne’e: ____________________________Member

Philip Waletobata: ________________________Member

Wesley Ramo: __________________________ Clerk

Right to appeal is within 3 Months of this date.