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

Foumauri v Onahikeni [2024] SBLC 3; Land Case 19 of 2014 (26 August 2024)

IN THE MALAITA LOCAL COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case No: 19 of 2014

IN THE MATTER OF: Kwaifala -Feleunga LAND

Between: Martin Foumauri and Augustine Funasia Plaintiff

AND Jeremy Onahikeni, Henry Ofomauri, Billy Oilae and Tefeka Defendant

Date of Hearing: 22/08/2024

Date of ruling: 26/08/2024

Continuation of the Ruling on 24 July 2020

On 24 July 2020, the Local Court issued directives to the chiefs of the locality concerning the disputed land to address and determine two critical issues:

1. The customary fact of how the plaintiff's member granted authority to Mr. Leoi to acquire the portion of land in dispute.
2. The origins of the defendant's migration and how their ancestor or grandfather came to acquire the disputed area, claimed as Kwaifala land, or Claim 11.
   

Issue 1: Authority Granted to Mr. Leoi

The plaintiff asserts that the land in question is part of Feleunga customary land, owned by their tribe. According to the customs of the Feleunga tribe, authority over a piece of land can be granted to a trusted individual who has performed good deeds, allowing them to live on and use that land. The plaintiff claims that Mr. Leoi is such an individual who was granted authority to reside on a portion of the Feleunga land.

The court acknowledges the customary practice within the Malaita region, where individuals who have earned trust and demonstrated good deeds may be granted authority over land, even if they are not members of the tribe. This authority, as understood in local custom, is a significant and powerful gift that carries the right to control or use the land or a given portion of it. The authority is not just a temporary license but a respected and often perpetual right, contingent upon the continued recognition of the granting community.

In this case, evidence presented during the proceedings indicates that this authority was indeed granted to Mr. Leoi. The court finds it persuasive that when development activities took place on the portion of land known as Kwaifala, members of the Feleunga tribe sought permission from the defendant to use the harbor and log pond located within Kwaifala. Moreover, the fact that payments were made to the defendant for the use of these facilities further reinforces the conclusion that the defendant party still holds the authority originally granted to them by the land-owning group. This behavior aligns with customary practices where authority granted by the tribe continues to be recognized as long as it is respected by both parties involved.

Issue 2: Gaining of Kwaifala Land by the Defendant's Ancestor

The defendant claims ownership of the land through their ancestor, Leoi, who, according to their grandfather, was the rightful owner of the disputed portion of land known as Kwaifala. The defendant sought to provide the court with customary facts about the Galona tribe, to which their ancestor Leoi was connected. However, the plaintiff objected, arguing that the issue at hand concerned Feleunga land and tribe, not the Galona tribe. The court has noted this objection and has focused its consideration solely on the issues related to the Feleunga land and tribe.

The court recognizes that, in accordance with Malaita custom, land or other valuable assets may be given to individuals as a reward for their good deeds and the trust they have earned from the community. In this particular case, it is evident from the testimonies and evidence that Leoi was granted authority over the disputed portion of land by the land-owning tribe, the Feleunga, due to his positive relationship with the tribe and the deeds he performed for them. This relationship of trust and the reciprocal nature of land grants are well-established in Malaita customary law.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented and the customary practices acknowledged by both parties, the court concludes that the authority over the disputed portion of land was rightfully granted to Leoi by the Feleunga tribe. This authority was given as recognition of Leoi's good deeds and trustworthiness. The court emphasizes that this authority was specific to the portion of land known as Kwaifala and does not extend to the entire tribal land of the Feleunga tribe.

Accordingly, the court rules that the defendant's claim to the disputed portion of land known as Kwaifala is valid, based on the authority granted to their ancestor, Leoi. This authority continues to be recognized and respected within the community. However, the court also clarifies that this authority is confined to the Kwaifala land and does not encompass broader claims over other parts of the Feleunga tribal land.

The court directs that any future claims or disputes regarding other portions of Feleunga land should be addressed separately and in accordance with the same principles of customary law that have been applied in this case. The court urges both parties to maintain respect for these customary practices to ensure peace and harmony within the community.

Right of appeal within 3 months

Parties bear their own cost.

Signed:

President: Nelson Ne’e

Member: Kenly Kena

Member: James Onai

Clerk: Wesley Ramo