IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)
CCase No. 28 of 2000
BETWEEN:
CHIEF MOSES JEFFREY OVA
First Plaintiff
AND:
CHIEF LUS
Second Plaintiff
AND:
class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: tom: 1">
ALEXANDER SAMSEN
Defendant
Coram: Before Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak
Clerk: Ms Cynthia Thomas
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Date of hearing: 23rd July, 2001
Counsels: Mr Silas Hakwa fe Plaintiffs
1">
Mr Saling N. Stephens for the defendants
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGEMENT
By Notice of Motion dated 10th May, 2001 the
defendant seeks Orders that�
1. &&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp & &nbp; &nbp;
Civil Case No. 28 f 28 filed in the Luganville Supreme Court by the
Plaintiffs herein be stayed until the Supreme Court file
in respect of the
original hearing be ed byRegisnd be made available fble for
or
i inspection by both parties.
2. &nnbsp;;&nspp;nbsp;nbsp;&nbp; &nnbsp;;&nspp;&nsp; &nsp;
Suan further or othr other orders as deems fit.
3. &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;
an>Cpsts be reserved.
span "EN-Gbsp;
Mr Stephens relies on the affidavit of Samson Samsen in
support of his application . It is dated 10th May, 2001 . It was
read into evidence . Mr Hakwa objected to its admissibility on the grounds
that it is hearsay evidence;
that the deponent was not and has never been a
party to the proceedings in this Court or in the original proceedings in the
Santo/Malo Island Court .
Mr Samsen is on record the Spokesman for the Defendant,
his father.
His evidence is admissible on the basis of belief and
knowledge of what has happened in the past to date, he having the day
to day
carriage of the matter as far as his father is concerned . He has made an
important disclosure of a decision of
the Court which the Plaintiffs did not
disclose in the past . On that basis I think his evidence is admissible and
it
is so ruled.
The decision is in favour of the Plaintiffs . The Court
made that decision in its appellatisdiction. On 21st October
1988 the Santo/Malo Island Court made a decision concerning land disputes on
Matantas, Longrum and Longkar in
Big Bay, Santo . It appears that the
Plaintiffs were Plaintiffs and the Defendant herein and two other families
which
are not included here were defendants in that case . From the decision
it appears that all Parties were Appellants . The decision
favours the
Plaintiffs herein in respect of land delineated by boundary Vikakara, Lorum
creek, White Stone and Vunarira
to Chief Moses, and land delineated by
boundary Lorum creek, Old Natapoa Tree and White Stone to Chief Lus. It was
declared
that the Defendant has no ground in these areas . The decision of
the Court was given in or about August, 1992. The Court specifically
directed that people who occupy these areas who are not custom-owners should
negotiate and agree leases. It appears that
this has not happened between
these parties. It appears that the Defendant has continued to occupy land
and has continued
to claim ownership disregarding lawful directions of the
Court since 1992.
As if that is not enough the Defendant now seeks to stay
the proceedings merely for the sake of having access to the original
file
and the reasons for the decision.
In my view this is an unreasonable request . Much effort
has been put into locating the original file to no avail. Since 1992
the
matter is some 10 years old . To 1985 it is some 16 years old since its
origin in the Island Court. The Court Clerks
here today have not been in
those positions for that long to know where the file is . The question is
why ask for a File
today 10 � 16 years later when it could have been easier
in August 1992 immediately after the decision was in hand. The Defendant
has
not shown that he took steps in 1992 to request for the reasons for the
decision . The judicial officer who decided
the case is no longer in the
jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs have had judgment in 1992 . They have been
nied the fruit of that judgment since then to date . There here is nothing
to
suggest that the decision is not a valid decision . It is sealed. It
contains basically the conclusions of the Court,
its declarations and its
directions.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
It is therefore necessary to list the mafor trial.
It is directed that the matter be listed for trial on Thursday 6th
September at 08.30 hours.
PUBLISHED at Luganville this 25th
BY THE COURT
OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2001/78.html
