Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Taripoamata v Masewia [2021] VUSC 348; Civil Case 790 of 2020 (3 November 2021)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF Civil

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU Case No. 20/790 SC/CIVL

(Civil Jurisdiction)

BETWEEN: Eddie Kalowia Taripoamata

Claimant

AND: Chief Edwin Arthur Masewia & Chief Kalengoro Steel Masenawota

First Defendants

AND: Republic of Vanuatu

Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 1 November 2021

Before: Justice V.M. Trief

In Attendance: Claimant – Mr D. Yawha

First Defendants – Ms J. La’au

Second Defendant – Mr S. Aron

STRIKE-OUT ORDERS

1. The Amended Claim filed on 29 January 2021 is brought under s. 100 of the Land Leases Act [CAP. 163] (the ‘Act’) in relation to leasehold title no. 12/0314/004 between the First Defendants (lessors) and Oa Oa Limited (lessee) (the ‘lease’). The following relief is sought:
   2. Alternatively, by substituting the Claimant or alternatively, the Minister of Lands, as lessor of the Leasehold Title.
   100. Costs against the Defendants.
   4. Any orders deemed fit or just by the Court.
      
2. The Second Defendant filed a Strike-Out Application (the ‘Application’) and Sworn statements of Humphrey Tamata, Ily Fredy and Paul Gambetta, the Director of Lands. The Claimant filed the Sworn statement of Eddie Kalowia Taripoamata in response.
   
3. Mr Aron abandoned the ground of the Application in relation to abuse of process – he accepted that JRC 17/912 concerned a different lease.
   
4. The sole ground of the Application therefore is that the Claimant does not have standing to bring the claim as he is neither the lessor or lessee nor a declared custom owner: Mataskelekele v Bakokoto [2020] VUCA 31 at [26].
   
5. Mr Aron also cited the Chief Justice’s decision in Kalpoi v Kaltabang; Civil Case No. 17/2053 at [12]-[14]:
12. This claim is misconceived. Section 100 of the Land Leases Act is only concerned with the leasehoterest on the basis of frau fraud or mistake, that is, the interest of the lessee. Section 100 of the Act is not concerned with the interest of a lessor.
13. The decision or failure or refusal of the Third Defendant under attack or challenge was about the interest of the Claimant as lessor. The substance or interest in the leasehold “lease 229” is not affected in the register by the change of the name of the lessor by another lessor.
14. Section 100 is not the appropriate or not correct venue or claim for the refusal for or failing to change the name of the lessor by another lessor. Judicial review type claim may be the appropriate action against the failure or refusal decision of the Director of Land Records to that effect.