Family Koriman v Family Kalmet

Court Court of Appeal

Case type Civil Appeal

Case number 2085 of 2026

Hearing date 05 Aug 2026

Decision date 14 Aug 2026

Official PDF document

Judge(s) Hon. Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek; Hon. Justice Ronald Young; Hon. Justice Anthony Besanko; Hon. Justice Oliver A Saksak; Hon. Justice Viran Molisa Trief; Hon. Justice Maree Mackenzie; Hon. Justice Josaia NaigulevuNaigulevu

Appellant(s) Family Koriman

Respondent(s) Family Kalmet - First Respondent; Family Kalmermer - Second Respondent; Family Kalopong - Third Respondent; Family Kalwotong - Fourth Respondent; Family Kaltapu & Descentants - Fifth Respondent; Family Kalonikara - Sixth Respondent; Family Nase Kalmet Taleo - Seventh Respondent; Family Fatan Kalmari - Eighth Respondent

Counsel Mrs Mary Grace Nari for the Appellant; Mr Philip Fiuka holding papers for Mr J Tari for the First Respondent; Third Respondent- Self-represented; Fourth Respondent- Self-represented; Fifth Respondent- No appearance; Sixth Respondent- No appearance; Seventh Respondent- No appearance

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. Family Koriman seeks leave to appeal from an order of the court of 12th of June 2026 recording that the proceedings, including the appeal involving the Family Koriman had been discontinued and the relevant file closed.

2. On 18 February 2026 a judge's minute noted that four of the respondents /appellants had filed notices of discontinuance. Family Koriman did not appear at the hearing of the 18th of February. It was not included in the judge’s minute as one of those families who had filed a notice of discontinuance.

3. The proposed notice of appeal therefore sought reinstatement of the appeal in the Supreme Court.

4. On 31 July 2026 the Family Kalmet, the first respondent in the proceedings before this court, filed submissions. Included in the submissions was a photocopy of what Family Kalmet claimed was a notice of discontinuance by Family Koriman. The notice of discontinuance was dated 13 February 2026 with a stamp on the cover page of the document from the court dating the filing as 16 February 2026. On the following page the document was apparently signed by Kalorus Koriman.

5. The Family Koriman disputes the authenticity of the notice of discontinuance document.

6. In the Supreme Court Family Koriman filed a sworn statement by Kalorus Koriman relating to the alleged notice of discontinuance. In that sworn statement translated from Bislama to English Kalorus said that he had been told to sign a mostly blank document with the name Kalonikara on the top. He signed the document. The implication being that this signature was somehow tied in with the alleged false notice of discontinuance.

7. This Court was therefore faced with a question of the genuineness of a document which went to the core of the proposed appeal. One party to the proceedings asserted the genuineness of the document, the other party claimed it was a fraud.

8. After discussion with counsel we concluded that it was not for this Court to try to resolve whether or not the document was genuine. That question should be resolved by the Supreme Court. We consider the appropriate course of action now is as follows: -

9. We refuse leave to appeal. The merits of any appeal are unclear when we do not know whether a genuine notice of discontinuance was filed.

10. The application for leave to appeal was based on the proposition that Family Koriman had never filed a discontinuance and so their proceedings should not have been discontinued. However there is now a dispute as to whether a notice of discontinuance was in fact filed with respect to Family Koriman. This dispute must be resolved. It will therefore have to return to the Supreme Court. If the court finds no notice of discontinuance has been filed then a further application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court can be made. If the court finds the notice of discontinuance was signed and filed in the Supreme Court then the proceedings are discontinued unless a court grants an application to set the notice of discontinuance aside.

11. Although the Supreme Court said the file in these proceedings was “closed” this was purely an administrative decision. It does not prevent further proceedings in the file.

12. Counsel will therefore need to consider the most appropriate way to test the validity of the notice of discontinuance.

13. The application for leave to appeal is therefore refused. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

DATED AT Port Vila, this 14th day of August 2026
BY THE COURT

___________________________________
Honourable Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek