Tasus v Taftumol

EX TEMPORE DECISION AS TO RULE 17.8 MATTERS 

1.    The Claimant Loiror Lin Tasus filed the Claim for Judicial Review on 31 October 2025 together with the Sworn statement of Loiror Lin Tasus. The orders sought include that the Certificate of a Recorded Interest in Land (colloquially known as a ‘green certificate’) be cancelled and the matter be reheard in the nakamal, and costs. The grounds include that the Santo Malo Island Court decision dated 12 June 2015 (the ‘Island Court decision’) was not fair; that the Supreme Court has not yet listed the appeal against the Island Court decision; that the parties to the case were not aware of how the Defendant obtained the green certificate; and that the procedure that the Defendant took to obtain the green certificate was unfair. 

2.    The Defence was filed on 7 November 2025 together with the Sworn statement of Victor Moltures. The grounds of the Defence are that the Claimant has not complied with Rule 17.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) to name the person who made the decision to issue the green certificate; that the Island Court decision was appealed and the Supreme Court issued its judgment dated 29 June 2020 determining the appeal (the ‘Supreme Court judgment’) thus giving finality to the proceedings; and that the green certificate to Family Taftumol dated 20 April 2021 was issued in respect of the interest in land declared in the Supreme Court judgment [Attachment “VM2”, Sworn statement of Victor Moltures].  

3.    Rule 17.8(3) of the CPR provides that the judge will not hear the claim unless he or she is satisfied as to all four matters set out in that rule:   

(i)    the Claimants have an arguable case (rule 17.8(3)(a), CPR); and 

(ii)    the Claimants are directly affected by the decision under challenge (rule 17.8(3)(b), CPR); and 

(iii)    there has been no undue delay in making the Claim (rule 17.8(3)(c), CPR); and 

(iv)    there is no other available remedy which resolves the matter fully and directly (rule 17.8(3)(d), CPR).     

4.    Having considered the Claim, Defence, and Sworn statements of Loiror Lin Tasus and Victor Moltures and having heard counsel, I am satisfied of the following:  

a)    That the Claimant has not complied with 17.4(2)(b) of the CPR to name the person who made the decision under challenge as the defendant. The National Coordinator of the Custom Land Management Office (‘CLMO’) should have been named as defendant, not Family Taftumol who are merely the recipients of the green certificate; 

b)    That the Island Court decision was appealed in Land Appeal Case No. 15/05 in the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court has determined that appeal by Reserved Judgment dated 29 June 2000 [Attachment “VM1”, Sworn statement of Victor Moltures]. Accordingly, there is finality of those proceedings over the custom ownership of a number of custom lands; 

c)    That the Supreme Court in its judgment at para. 34(a) declared as follows:  

34.     Therefore, the Findings of facts, customs and declarations of customary ownership and interests of the lands which are the subjects of this dispute made on the 12th of June 2015 by the Santo Malo Island Court are confirmed except for the following corrections and amendments:  

a)     Family Taftumol and their descendants are declared custom owners with primary interests over the land of Tambotal, Belmol and Beleru; 
[emphasis added]  

d)    That the green certificate recording Family Taftumol’s interest in land dated 20 April 2021 references its interests in land namely primary interests over the Tambotal, Belmol and Beleru custom lands declared by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 29 June 2000; 

e)    That therefore the green certificate has been made in accordance with the law in recording the Defendants’ interests in land pursuant to its custom ownership declaration in the Supreme Court judgment; 

f)    That therefore the Claim is misconceived in its ground that the Supreme Court has not yet listed the appeal against the 12 June 2015 decision of the Island Court. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has determined that appeal by its judgment dated 29 June 2020; 

g)    Accordingly, the ground of the Claim that the Island Court decision was unfair lacks merit as the Island Court decision has been appealed and the appeal has been determined; and 

h)    That the remaining grounds that unnamed ‘parties to the case’ were not aware of the green certificate is not a basis to challenge the green certificate issued to the Defendant, nor that the procedure that the Defendant took to obtain the certificate was unfair when the certificate has been issued in respect of the Defendant’s declared interest in land; 

i)    For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the Claimant does not have an arguable case (rule 17.8(3)(a), CPR); 

j)    It is not contested that the Claimant is directly affected by the decision under challenge (rule 17.8(3)(b), CPR) and that there is no other available remedy which resolves the matter fully and directly (rule 17.8(3)(d), CPR); and 

k)    However, there is an undue delay in bringing the Claim in that it was filed over 4 years after the issuance of the green certificate and no explanation has been given for the delay. 

5.    Given that I am not satisfied about the matters in rule 17.8(3)(a) and (c) of the CPR, I therefore declined to hear the Claim and ordered that the Claim is struck out in accordance with rule 17.8(5) of the CPR. 

6.    Mr Tasso had also made an oral application to amend the Claim to raise that Sevua custom land should not be covered by the green certificate. Given that there is finality in the proceedings as the Supreme Court has determined the appeal against the Island Court decision and that the green certificate does not relate to Sevua custom land, I consider that there is no merit in raising matters as to Sevua custom land by way of an amendment to the Claim. Accordingly, I also declined and dismissed that oral application made on behalf of the Defendant. 

7.    Costs shall follow the event. The Claimant is to pay the Defendant’s costs of the proceeding summarily fixed in the amount of VT120,000 by 4pm on 25 June 2026.  

DATED at Port Vila this 26th day of May, 2026 
BY THE COURT 

…………………………………………. 
Justice V.M. Trief