Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Joint Court of the New Hebrides

  Download original PDF

Willy v Ashton - Judgment of the French Judge of the Joint Court [1917] VUNHJC 10; Civil 358 (18 December 1917)

CIVIL HEARING OF 18^th December 1917

CASE N 358

Separate Judgment of the FRENCH
JUDGE of the JOINT COURT

WILLY and other natives of LELEPPA

v

Captain ASHTON

JOINT COURT

Considering that according to writ of FAUCHER'S Bailiff, of 17th November 1917, the natives WILLY and associates, natives of the island of LELEPPA, Havannah Harbour (EFATE), represented by M. SEAGOE, Acting Advocate for the Natives have summoned before this Court M. Percival G. ASHTON for that:

"Considering the said ASHTON has penetrated into the complainant’s property at Havannah Harbour know under the name of BALAU, which property has been occupied by them and their tribe for upwards of 30 years, and the "Captain Ashton" claims by virtue "of a title contested by the plaintiffs;

To hear the said Ashton condemned to discontinue all occupation or possession or act as proprietor until the Joint Court will have decreed upon a definite establishment or regulation of the titles to the property.

Whereas the defendant on his side acknowledges that the scale of which he avails was effected outside the prescribed conditions in article 27 of the Convention of 20th October 1906, relative to the sale and transfers subsequent to the said Convention.

But whereas the question on the case concerns a claim for landed property in the meaning of Article 12, 1 ) a) for the exercise of which alone the special regulations formulated by the "Convention in Articles 22 and following ones under the head of landed property regimen;"; that in effect, the present debate raises a question both of possession and of property of possession with regard to the plaintiffs who state they are owners from a time immemorial: of property on the part of the defendant who lays claim as proprietor by virtue of an act of an set of sale; the necessarily, to decide this litigation it would require to examine the validity of the rights of the parties before deciding who is the legitimate owner or proprietor;

Therefore considering that according to the decision of the two Governments notified to the President of this jurisdiction by a joint letter No. 72 bis dated 20th July 1915 from the two Resident Commissioners heres the registration of landed property has been suspended during the continuance of the war.

Considering that the Court would not without violating this decision, enter into the main points for this suit, which would necessitate the examination of titles as has been said; that it appears certain that this examination is narrowly attached to the question of registration, which is in some respects but the consideration of the defendants claim.

That under these conditions it is needful to maintain the statu quo and to suspend a decision in the present instance until the resumption of the work of registration.

For these reasons the French Judge is of opinion to:

Suspend decision in the present instance until the resumption of the land registration –

Total costs to be pooled and to be paid in equal shares by the two parties in the cause.

FRENCH JUDGE