Estate of Jean Yves Didou & Nadia Kanegai Didou
DECISION
[ with correction to the Paclii URL in the footnote from www.paclii.org.vu to https://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/ under the Slip rule]
a. Introduction
1. The Applicants filed on the 2nd February 2026 an Application for Letters of Administration in the estate of the deceased which consists of, amongst other things, the Child Care Centre School.
2. The first Respondent filed, on the 25th February 2026, a Response opposing the grant of Letters of Administration of the Child Care Centre School to the Applicants on the basis that the deceased, prior to her death, had an agreement with Church of Christ Education Authority to manage the school.
3. The Second Respondents filed, on the 13th March 2026, an objection to the grant being made to the Georgina Kanegai and Amy Vira on the basis that the former are the true sisters of the deceased and are concerned about the welfare of Natalie Didou and William Didou who are the only biological children of the deceased. The said objection is supported by sworn statements filed on the 10th June, 2026 by the Antoinette Kanegai Hava Bani and Marinette Kanegai Mahit respectively.
4. The second Respondents further added that the deceased, prior to her death, had expressed her trust in Antonette’s responsibility for the Child Care Centre’s future operation.
5. In additional, the Second Respondents added that, to preserve the deceased legacy and the interest of the deceased children and their grandchildren, they seek the Court’s leave to be included as Applicants for the administration of the deceased estate.
b. The law
Succession to property on intestacy.
6. (1) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding Part hereof, the administrator on intestacy or, in the case of partial intestacy, the executor or administrator with the will annexed, shall hold the property as to which a person dies intestate on or after the date of commencement of this Regulation on trust to pay the debts, funeral and testamentary expenses of the deceased and to distribute the residue as follows:-
(a) if the intestate leaves a wife, or husband, with or without issue, the surviving wife or husband shall take the personal chattels absolutely, and –
(i) if the net value of the residuary estate of the intestate, other than the personal chattels, does not exceed ten thousand dollars the residuary estate absolutely; or
(ii) if the net value of the residuary estate exceeds ten thousand dollars, the sum of ten thousand dollars absolutely;
(b) if the intestate leaves no issue, the surviving wife or husband shall, in addition to the interests taken under paragraph (a) of this subsection, take one-half of the residuary estate absolutely;
(c) if the intestate leaves issue, the surviving wife or husband shall, in addition to the interests taken under paragraph (a) of this subsection, taken one-third only of the residuary estate absolutely, and the issue shall take per stirpes and not per capita the remaining two-thirds of the residuary estate absolutely;
(d) if the intestate leaves issue, but no wife or husband, the issue of the intestate shall take per stirpes and not per capita the whole estate of the intestate absolutely; ...
(3) In this section –
"child"
(a) in relation to an intestate, means any child, whether legitimate, illegitimate, or legally adopted, of the intestate;
(b) in relation to any person entitled under the provisions of this Regulation to share in the property of an intestate, means any child legitimate, illegitimate, or legally adopted of that person;
"issue" includes a child or any other issue whether legitimate or illegitimate, in any generation, of an intestate.
(4) For the purposes of this section, an illegitimate relationship between a father and his child shall not be recognised unless the court is satisfied that the father admitted paternity or that it has been established in affiliation proceedings.
Persons entitled to grant.
7. The court may grant administration of the estate of a person dying intestate to the following persons (separately or conjointly) being not less than twenty-one years of age –
(a) the husband or wife of the deceased; or
(b) if there is no husband or wife to one or not more than four or the next of kin in order of priority of entitlement under this Regulation in the distribution of the estate of the deceased; or
(c) any other person, whether a creditor or not, if there is no person entitled to a grant under the preceding paragraphs of this section resident within the jurisdiction and fit to be so entrusted, or if the person entitled as aforesaid fails, when duly cited, to appear and apply for administration.
Duties of an Administrator
6. The duty of the Administrator is to ensure that Section 6 of the Queens Regulation 1 is complied with. The said duty is further elaborated in the Court of Appeal case of In re Estate of Molivono 2 and I quote:
“…The second point to be made about this litigation is that the granting of probate or administration does nothing to determine ultimate ownership of the personal property of the person who has died. Not only in this case but in others as well we have seen suggestions that the grant of the right to administer an estate meant there was a determination of what property was owned by the estate and also governed its future ownership. Obtaining probate or administration is placing on an individual an extraordinarily solemn duty. It is the duty first to call in and collect all the properties of the deceased person apart from any interest in custom land. Then, they must pay all the debts of the estate. Their solemn obligation is to ensure that what is left is distributed either in accordance with the terms of the will or in accordance with the rules laid down in Queen’s Regulations 7. It provides for the executor or administrator no rights of ownership or personal benefit. (my emphasis)
A person who is granted probate or administration is answerable to the Court for the proper exercise of the obligation which he or she has chosen to take up….”[
c. Discussion
7. It is important to begin the discussion by stating that an Application for Letters of Administration is primarily filed for the Court to appoint an Administrator under section 7 of the Queens Regulation. 3
8. All objections filed against the Application for Letters of Administration discussing the management of the estate prior to the appointment of the Administrator are premature.
9. In appointing an Administrator pursuant to section 7 4, the Court considers the priority of ranking of the persons having an interest in the estate as laid out in section 6 of the Queens Regulation. 5
Where do the parties fall under Section 6 of the Queens Regulation. 6
10. The Applicants, in particular Natalie Marie Therese Didou and William Philippe Didou, fall under Section 6 (d).
11. The legislation states that the beneficial interest to the estate, in the absence of a husband or a wife, becomes absolute when it reaches the children of the deceased namely Natalie Marie Therese Didou and William Philippe Didou.
12. Natalie Marie Therese Didou and William Philippe Didou are the sole beneficiaries to the estate recognized under the legislation.
13. There are no evidences provided to indicate that the deceased had legally adopted Georgina Kanegai and Amy Vira, apart from the statements filed by Natalie Marie Therese Didou and William Philippe Didou referring to them as their sisters.
14. Therefore, Georgina Kanegai and Amy Vira are not beneficiaries to the estate of the deceased.
15. The Respondents are also not beneficiaries of the estate.
Where do the parties fall under Section 7 of the Queens Regulation. 7
16. The Applicants, in particular Natalie Marie Therese Didou and William Philippe Didou, fall under Section 7(b).
17. Though Georgina Kanegai and Amy Vira are not beneficiaries, Natalie Marie Therese Didou and William Philippe Didou respectively filed sworn statements of consent to have them as joint Applicants in this proceeding.
18. The Respondents, being not beneficiaries to the estate, fall under Section 7(c).
19. The Respondents position will only be considered where the prior provisions of Section 7 (a) (b) are not satisfied.
The Respondents objections
20. The First Respondent does not dispute the Applicants’ capacity to administer the estate but is concerned with the Authority of the Church of Christ Education to manage the Child Care Centre School.
21. The First Respondent filed on the 9th June 2026 a sworn statement attaching documents being evidence of discussions between the deceased and the Churches of Christ Education Authority regarding the Registration of CHILD CARE CENTER (CCC) under the Churches of Christ Education Authority”.
22. In the annexure “JB-5” attached to the sworn statement filed on the 9th June 2026, following the subject in paragraph 3, the deceased is referred to as the owner of the Child Care Centre.
23. Furthermore, Natalie Marie Therese Didou filed on the 6th March, 2026 a sworn statement wherein annexure “NMTD 1” pages 3-4 and page 5 are extract from the Vanuatu Financial Services Commission Certificate of Registration and Customs and Inland Revenue Business License respectively showing that the Child Care Centre School is owned by the deceased.
24. Thus, Child Care Centre School forms part of the estate of the deceased.
25. It is apparent from the information provided that the First Respondent is faced with two separate independent issues which the Court deemed necessary to clarify.
26. The first issue is with the management of the Church of Christ Education Authority.
27. It is assumed, based on the information provided, that the passing of the deceased halted the progress of registration of the Child Care Centre School under the Church of Christ Education Authority.
28. The First Respondent needs to understand that the passing away of the deceased does not affect the management of the Church of Christ Education Authority which retains its authority to manage its affairs.
29. Therefore, for one to request to be appointed Administrator of an estate for the sole purpose of enabling a legitimately established entity to continue with the management of its affairs, defeats the purposes outline in Section 6 8 and such request must fail.
30. The second issue is in the Administration of the estate.
31. An Administrator is appointed under Section7 9 , to carrying out its duties under Section 6 10 .
32. The First Respondent is not a beneficiary under Section 6 and his request to be appointed Administrator Section 7 will only be considered if Natalie Marie Therese Didou, William Philippe Didou and the other two Applicants have not filed an Application.
33. The First Respondent has provided no evidence to show that he is better placed than the Applicant to Administer the deceased estate.
Duty of the Administrator
34. The legislation, Section 6 11 has clearly defined the duties of an Administrator as follows:
“6. (1) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding Part hereof, the administrator on intestacy or, in the case of partial intestacy, the executor or administrator with the will annexed, shall hold the property as to which a person dies intestate on or after the date of commencement of this Regulation on trust to pay the debts, funeral and testamentary expenses of the deceased and to distribute the residue as follows:…”
35. The above-mentioned section is further elaborated in the In Re Molivono 12 case.
36. In summary, when a person dies, all properties under their name are frozen awaiting the appointment of an Administrator who will move the estate. All parties are reminded that Administrators have no ownership over the estate, unless they fall under the categories outlined in Section 6 13.
37. It is important for all to understand that the legal process prioritizes the payments of debts over the distribution of the residue, if there is any, to the beneficiaries.
38. The Second Respondents objection is directed to Georgina Kanegai and Amy Vira being appointed Administrators whom they fear may mismanage the estate.
39. The Second Respondents raised concerns for the deceased children and grandchildren’s welfare and interest in the estate.
40. The Second Respondents need to understand, once and for all, that the beneficial interest in the estate becomes absolute when it reaches the children, herein being Natalie Marie Therese Didou and William Philippe Didou.
41. The Second Respondents are reminded that their fear is premature as the Court has not yet appointed an Administrator.
42. Once appointed, an Administrator has a legal duty to carry out. If the Administrator fails to perform their legal duty or if there is mismanagement of the estate, then the beneficiaries have the right to call the Administrator into account and if found guilty will be held account.
43. Under the legislation, it is clearly established that the Second Respondents do not fall under the category of beneficiaries under Section 6 and their request to be appointed joint Administrators under Section 7 will only be considered where Natalie Marie Therese Didou, William Philippe Didou and the other two Applicants have not filed an Application.
44. The second Respondents are reminded that Natalie Marie Therese Didou and William Philippe Didou each filed a sworn statement consenting to Georgina Kanegai and Amy Vira to be appointed together as joint Applicants in this proceeding.
45. Therefore, all who may have a claim against the deceased estate must wait for the appointment of an Administrator to whom they may present their grievances.
46. All discussion on the management of estate, prior to the appointment of an Administrator, is preempting the legal process to take its course and must fail.
d. Finding
1. That Application for Letters of Administration in the estate of Jean-Yves Didou & Kanegai Nadia Kwevirakesa late of Morbihan, France and of Port-Vila Efate Island, SHEFA Province in the Republic of Vanuatu respectively and who died on the 8 May 2024 and 9 January 2026 respectively is granted jointly to Natalie Marie Therese Didou, William Philippe Didou, Georgina Kanegai and Amy Vira.
2. The sworn value of the estate is estimated under VT 300,000,000.
3. All issues regarding the deceased estate must be put forward to the Administrators.
4. Costs rest where they fall.
5. This case is now closed.
BY THE COURT
DEPUTY MASTER
1 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vuhttps://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
2 In re Estate of Molivono [2007] VUCA 22; Civil Appeal Case 37 of 2007 ( 30 November 2007)
3 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vuhttps://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
4 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vuhttps://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
5 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vuhttps://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
6 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vuhttps://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
7 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vuhttps://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
8 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vuhttps://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
9 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vuhttps://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
10 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vu https://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
11 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vuhttps://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/
12 In re Estate of Molivono [2007] VUCA 22; Civil Appeal Case 37 of 2007 ( 30 November 2007)
13 Succession, Probate and Administration Regulation 1972, URL: www.paclii.org.vu https://paclii.org/vu/legis/vu-uk_act/spaar1972467/