Bani v Tevi
DECISION AS TO RELIEF AND/OR QUANTUM OF DAMAGES
A. Introduction
1. The Claimant Samson Bani filed the Claim against the First Defendant Dickinson Tevi alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. The relief sought included an order that Mr Tevi share his leasehold property at the Jubilee Farm on Santo island with Mr Bani as well as damages. The Claim was opposed.
2. The matter proceeded to trial.
3. By Judgment dated 16 October 2023, the Court entered judgment for Mr Bani with damages and/or other relief to be determined: Bani v Tevi [2023] VUSC 232. The State was joined as a party, namely the Second Defendant, and ordered to file and serve a sworn statement of the Director of Lands disclosing all registered dealings in land in respect of leasehold title no. 04/2632/075 (the ‘Jubilee Farm property’) and in respect of leasehold title no. 12/0631/651 (the ‘Prima area property’).
4. On 22 November 2023, the State filed the Sworn statement of Gordon Willie, the Director of Lands disclosing the registered dealings for the Jubilee Farm property and the Prima area property.
5. In November 2025, the First Defendant applied to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal the Judgment dated 16 October 2023. By judgment dated 13 February 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application: Tevi v Bani [2026] VUCA 4.
6. The Court of Appeal noted the following as to the representation of the Claimant who passed away on 12 January 2026: Tevi v Bani [2026] VUCA 4 at [2]:
2. The claimant in the Supreme Court proceeding (and the initial respondent to the present application), Samson Bani, died on 12 January 2026. His son, Gibson Barry Bani applied to this court for an order that he be substituted as a party as the personal representative of Samson Bani under rule 3.10(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no objection to that from the applicant. We made an order to that effect at the commencement of the hearing.
7. The Claimant is therefore renamed in accordance with the Court of Appeal order. This is reflected in the entitling of the parties in this decision.
8. Despite the Orders dated 21 November 2023, 21 March 2024 and 16 October 2025, the parties have not filed and served sworn statements as to quantum or damages and/or other relief or submissions.
9. The parties have had ample time to do so.
10. I will now determine the quantum and/or other relief for the Claimant following the Judgment dated 16 October 2023.
B. Consideration
11. In the Judgment dated 16 October 2023, I made a number of factual findings and concluded that Mr Bani had proved his claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Some of those findings included the following at [68](a)(ix)-[71]:
68. ...
a. ...
(ix) I consider it proved therefore that in February 2009, Mr Tevi told Mr Bani that that he had purchased 10 hectares of land at Jubilee Farm with the loan monies which would be shared equally with Mr Bani, and that subsequently due to Mr Bani’s children’s preference, they agreed that Mr Tevi’s Prima area property would be the replacement for the property that the NBV seized. These were representations of fact made by words by Mr Tevi.
b. The representation must be made with knowledge that it is false i.e., it must be wilfully false or at least made in the absence of any genuine belief that it is true or recklessly i.e., without caring whether his representation is true or false (Derry v Peek [1889] 14 App. Cas. 337) –
(i) Given Mr Tevi’s earlier misrepresentation made in 2003 which resulted in the damage suffered by Mr Bani, I consider that Mr Tevi’s later representations were made recklessly in order to appease Mr Bani in the aftermath of the NBV seizing his property but he (Mr Tevi) did not care whether his representations were true or false.
c. The representation must be made with the intention that it should be acted upon by the claimant, in the manner which resulted in damage to him –
(i) I find as proved that Mr Tevi’s representations were made with the intention that they should be acted upon by Mr Bani as following their agreement that the Prima area property would be the replacement for the property that the NBV seized, Mr Bani’s children and family have lived on the Prima area property since 2009, built a big house there in 2014 and continue to live there.
(ii) This has resulted in damage to Mr Bani as he and his family have spent on developments there but Mr Tevi has never given Mr Bani registered title over the property.
(iii) I conclude therefore that Mr Tevi’s representations were made with the intention that they should be acted upon by Mr Bani, in the manner which has resulted in damage to Mr Bani.
d. It must be proved that the claimant acted upon the false statements –
(i) I find as proved that following Mr Bani and Mr Tevi’s agreement that Mr Tevi would transfer registered title over the Prima area property to Mr Bani as the replacement property for Mr Bani’s seized leasehold property, Mr Bani’s family moved onto the Prima area property, developed the land and continue to live there.
(ii) Accordingly, it has been proved that Mr Bani acted upon the false statements.
e. It must be proved that the claimant has sustained damage by so doing –
(i) I find as proved that Mr Bani has sustained damage by so doing as contrary to the representation made, Mr Tevi has never given Mr Bani registered title over the Prima area property.
69. In the circumstances, Mr Bani has proved the Claim on the balance of probabilities.
70. Judgment will be entered in Mr Bani’s favour with damages and/or other relief to be determined as there is insufficient material before the Court to make the orders sought.
71. Mr Bani sought relief including an order that Mr Tevi transfer leasehold property to Mr Bani, or alternatively, an award of damages. However, there is no evidence as to the value or purchase price of either of Mr Tevi’s leasehold properties (at Prima area and at Jubilee Farm) and whether or not they are unencumbered. I consider therefore that the State must be joined as a party so that the Director of Lands can assist the Court with the relevant information from the Land Leases Register, and thereafter the Court make its orders which the State can abide by.
[emphasis added]
12. Mr Willie’s evidence is that Mr Tevi is the registered proprietor of leasehold title no. 04/2632/075 located at the Jubilee Farm on Santo island. The transfer of that lease to Mr Tevi was registered on 9 January 2020 [Attachment “GW4”]. The lease title is unencumbered.
13. Mr Willie’s evidence as to the Prima area property is that the transfer of lease title no. 12/0631/651 to Mr Tevi and several others as joint proprietors was registered on 9 August 2017 [Attachment “GW8”]. This lease title is also unencumbered.
14. Given the findings of fact made in the Judgment dated 16 October 2023 particularly Mr Bani and Mr Tevi’s agreement that the Prima area property would be the replacement for Mr Bani’s property which the bank seized, which has led to Mr Bani’s children and family living on the Prima area property since 2009 and continuing to live there, and in light of Mr Willie’s evidence, I consider that the relief that should be ordered is for Mr Tevi to transfer his interest in leasehold title no. 12/0631/651 at the Prima area on Efate island to the Claimant. I will so order.
15. The alternative relief sought in the Claim was an order for damages. I consider that an award of damages is in order to apply in the event that the order for transfer of leasehold interest is not complied with.
16. As set out in the Judgment dated 16 October 2023, I found that in 2003, Mr Bani agreed that his leasehold property located at Chapuis (‘Sapi’) area at Luganville on Santo island be used as security for Mr Tevi’s loan which loan would be and was used to purchase 10 hectares of land at Jubilee Farm that would be shared equally between them. The loaned amount totalled VT3,455,000. I infer that the value of Mr Bani’s property was at least VT3,455,000 as the bank concerned accepted it as security for Mr Tevi’s loan.
17. I also found that Mr Tevi made this false representation to Mr Bani recklessly. Mr Bani acted on the representation by proceeding with a third party mortgage as agreed but subsequently this resulted in damage to Mr Bani when the bank concerned seized his property under Court Orders dated 5 February 2007 due to Mr Tevi defaulting on the loan.
18. I find therefore that in 2007, Mr Bani suffered loss and damage of VT3,455,000 being the value of his leasehold property which was seized by the bank under Court Order. He is entitled to an award of damages in this amount.
19. Mr Bani is also entitled to pre-judgment interest from the time the cause of action arose (2007) to the date of judgment pursuant to para. 3(1)(a) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (UK). This legislation is still applicable as the Vanuatu Parliament has not yet enacted legislation to displace it. The Court of Appeal held in VCMB v Dornic [2009] VUCA 43 that the rate of interest is 5% per annum. It is simple interest.
20. Accordingly, Mr Bani is entitled to pre-judgment interest at the rate of 5% per annum on the VT3,455,000 damages for a period of 19 years (the number of years from 2007 to this year 2026) = VT172,750 interest per annum x 19 years = VT3,282,250.
21. I will therefore order that if the order for transfer of leasehold interest is not complied with within the time ordered, that Mr Tevi is to pay to the Claimant the damages ordered together with pre-judgment interest.
22. Mr Bani is also entitled to post-judgment interest.
C. Result and Decision
23. Further to the Judgment dated 16 October 2023, the following relief and/or damages is ordered in favour of the Claimant:
a) The First Defendant is to transfer his interest in leasehold title no. 12/0631/651 at the Prima area on Efate island to the Claimant, which transfer of lease instrument is to be signed and lodged with the Director of Lands by 4pm on 21 July 2026;
b) The Director of Lands is to register the transfer of lease instrument in the Claimant’s favour and inform the Court by Memorandum filed and served by 4pm on 21 August 2026;
c) In the event that the order in para. 22(a) above is not complied with, the First Defendant is to pay to the Claimant damages in the amount of VT3,455,000 and pre-judgment interest of VT3,282,250, totalling VT6,737,250 (the ‘judgment sum’); and
d) In the event that the order in para. 22(a) above is not complied with, the First Defendant is to pay interest of 5% per annum on the judgment sum until fully paid.
24. As previously ordered, costs must follow the event. The First Defendant is to pay the Claimant’s costs as agreed or as taxed by the Master and once set, paid within 28 days.
25. There is no order for the Second Defendant’s costs.
D. Enforcement
26. Pursuant to rule 14.37(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’), I now schedule an Enforcement Conference at 1pm on 23 July 2026 to ensure that this decision has been executed or for the First Defendant to explain how it is intended to comply with this decision. For that purpose, the Claimant is to serve this decision and a summons in Form 27 of the CPR on the First Defendant and file proof of service by 4pm on 30 June 2026.
DATED at Port Vila this 24th day of June, 2026
BY THE COURT
………………………………………….
Justice Viran Molisa Trief