Archipel Solutions Limited v Suru Area Council (Central Pentecost 1)
JUDGMENT
[with corrections to the Claimant’s name under the Slip rule]
A. Introduction
1. The Claimant Archipel Solutions Limited (‘Archipel Solutions’) filed the Judicial Review Claim seeking a declaration that the Defendant Suru Area Council (Central Pentecost 1) (the ‘Council’)’s decision made on 15-17 October 2025 which stopped the operation of the Fuel Station at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost is unlawful, an order quashing that decision, costs and any other Order deemed fit.
2. The Claim is disputed.
3. This is the judgment after trial.
B. Background
4. Archipel Solutions is a Vanuatu registered company which is wholly owned by Ocean Logistics Limited, which is also a Vanuatu registered company. Archipel Solutions is not a foreign investor.
5. Archipel Solutions operates a fuel station on custom land belonging to Family Molrang at Bwatnapni area in the central part of Pentecost island.
6. At its meeting on 15-17 October 2025, the Council made a decision to stop the operation of the fuel station at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost for the following reasons:
(i) To uphold integrity and good governance towards the citizens of Central Pentecost 1 area (“Council hemi upholdem integrity blong Good Governance blong hem towards ol citizens blong CP-1”);
(ii) That Archipel Solutions was operating its fuel station at Central Pentecost 1 area without a business licence; and
(iii) That the Council had received complaints from the chairmen of the five ward councils of Central Pentecost 1 area.
7. It is accepted that Archipel Solutions operated the fuel station in 2025 without a business licence. Mr Bohn’s evidence was that they applied to the Council for a business licence but were given an authorization letter to set up the fuel station and were told that a business licence would be issued in 2026 [Exhibit C2 – Attachment “AB9”]. The signatories to the letter included Mr Richard Tabi, the Area Administrator of Central Pentecost 1 area.
8. On 25 March 2026, the Supreme Court in Molrang v Suru Area Council (Central Pentecost) [2026] VUSC 58 per Lunabek CJ issued its decision striking out the Judicial Review Claim in that matter.
9. Also on 25 March 2026, Mr Richard Tabi, Area Administrator of Central Pentecost 1 area issued a business licence to Archipel Solutions to operate the fuel station at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost 1 area.
C. The Pleadings and Evidence
10. On 16 April 2026, the Claimant filed the Judicial Review Claim and the Sworn statement of Andrew Bohn, Chief Executive Officer of Archipel Solutions [Exhibit C1]. The Further Sworn statement of Andrew Bohn was filed on 20 July 2026 [Exhibit C2].
11. On 15 July 2026, the Defendant filed its Defence and the Sworn statements of Kelly Tabi, Assistant Secretary General of the Penama Provincial Government Council [Exhibit D1] and Richard Tabi, Area Administrator of Bwatnapni – Central Pentecost 1 of the Penama Provincial Government Council [Exhibit D2].
12. All three witnesses were cross-examined.
13. Archipel Solutions alleges that the Fuel Station at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost is a private business by it and that the Council has no power to stop the operation of such private business.
14. It is also alleged that the functions of an area council (such as the Defendant) under s. 4AA of the Decentralization Act [CAP. 230] does not include stopping the operation of a business (such as the Claimant’s).
15. The defence case is that it has the power to stop the operation of the fuel station pursuant to subs. 2(1) and para. 3(1)(b) of the Business Licence Act [CAP. 249] and s. 4AA and subs. 20(4) of the Decentralization Act.
16. The issue is whether the Council has the power to stop Archipel Solutions’ operation of the fuel station at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost?
D. The Law
17. Section 2 of the Business Licence Act provides, relevantly, as follows:
2. (1) A person must not carry on a business without a licence issued under this Act, unless the person is exempted from paying a business licence fee under Schedule 2.
…
(2) Any person (other than a person exempted under Schedule 2) who carries on a business without a licence shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: fine not exceeding VT500,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or both.
(3) Where a person is charged under this section with carrying on any business without a licence, the burden of proving that a licence was issued to him in respect of the current year shall be on that person.
18. Subsection 3(1) of the Business Licence Act provides as follows:
3. (1) There shall for the purposes of this Act be the following licensing authorities:
(a) in respect of a municipality, the Minister;
(b) in respect of all other areas of Vanuatu, local government councils;
(c) in respect of business licences of the kind mentioned in sections 8, 9 and 10 – the Director.
19. Section 4Aa of the Decentralization Act provides as follows:
4AA. The functions of an area council are to:
(a) review and consolidate community action plans for each community within that area council division or district; and
(b) develop an area council Strategic Development Plan for the relevant area council division or district; and
(c) coordinate, monitor and report to the relevant Provincial Government Council on the implementation of the relevant area council Strategic Development Plan.
20. Subsection 20(4) of the Decentralization Act provides as follows:
20. As from the dates they are established, Provincial Government Councils are empowered to make by-laws, on the matters listed below:
…
(4) Rules and regulations governing professional activities relating to the issuing of licences payable to Provincial Government Councils;
E. Discussion
21. It is accepted that Archipel Solutions operated the fuel station at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost in 2025 without a business licence. Mr Bohn’s explanation why it did so was not contradicted.
22. Mr Jonah accepted that there is no provision in either the Business Licence Act or the Decentralization Act conferring a power on a Provincial Government Council or an area council to stop the operation of a business.
23. Mr Jonah submitted, however, that the Council could stop the operation of the fuel station pursuant to subs. 2(1) and para. 3(1)(b) of the Business Licence Act. I cannot agree. Subsection 2(1) of the Business Licence Act prohibits carrying on a business without a business licence. Subsection 2(2) of the Business Licence Act provides that it is criminal offence to carry on a business without a business licence. As for subs. 3(1) of the Business Licence Act, that provides that local government councils are licensing authorities in respect of non-municipal areas. Neither provision confers a power on the Council to stop the operation of a business which is being carried on without a business licence.
24. Mr Jonah also submitted that the Council could stop the operation of the fuel station pursuant to s. 4AA and subs. 20(4) of the Decentralization Act. I cannot agree with this submission either. Section 4AA of the Decentralization Act sets out the functions of an area council which are to review community action plans, develop a Strategic Development Plan for itself (the area council) and monitor and report back to the relevant Provincial Government Council on the implementation of its Strategic Development Plan. There is no function prescribed for an area council to stop the operation of a business within its area.
25. As for subs. 20(4) of the Decentralization Act, that provision confers a power on a Provincial Government Council to make by-laws. It does not confer such power on an area council. In any event, the Council did not stop Archipel Solutions from operating its fuel station based on any by-laws.
26. For the reasons given, the submissions made on behalf of the Council are rejected.
27. As there is no provision in either the Business Licence Act or the Decentralization Act conferring a power on a Provincial Government Council or an area council to stop the operation of a business, the Council’s decision made on 15-17 October 2025 to stop Archipel Solutions’ operation of the fuel station at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost is unlawful. A declaration will be made to that effect and the decision quashed.
F. Result and Decision
28. Judgment is entered for the Claimant and it is ordered as follows:
a) Declaration that the Defendant’s decision made on 15-17 October 2025 which stopped the operation of the Fuel Station at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost is unlawful; and
b) The Defendant’s decision made on 15-17 October 2025 which stopped the operation of the Fuel Station at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost is quashed.
29. Costs must follow the event. The Defendant is to pay to the Claimant costs fixed in the sum of VT200,000 by 4pm on 3 October 2026.
DATED at Port Vila this 4th day of September, 2026
BY THE COURT
………………………………………….
Justice Viran Molisa Trief