Palaud v The Island Court (Land) of the Republic of Vanuatu
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1. This is an appeal against an order made in the Supreme Court on 13 February 2026 that the Judicial Review Application (The “Application”) filed on 24 October 2025, was no longer effective because there had been no proof of service filed to show that the Application was served within 3 months under R.5.3 of Civil Procedure Rules of 2002. The file was closed.
2. The order of the Supreme Court made on 13 February 2026, which is being appealed, was an administrative type of order issued by a Judge or the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court as part of the normal case management of cases filed before the Supreme Court pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules.
3. Rules 5.1 (1), 5.3 (1) and 4.15 (a) and (b) are the relevant rules for this type of case management. They provide as follows: -
Who serves a document
5.1 (1) If these Rules require a document to be served, the party who filed the document is responsible for ensuring that the document is served.
(2) The party responsible for service may apply to the court for an order that the document be served by an enforcement officer or other person.
(3) The court may order that the document be served by an enforcement officer or other person if the court is satisfied that the circumstances of the proceeding require it. [Emphasis added].
Service of claim
5.2 The claim and response form must be served on the defendant personally, unless:
(a) rule 5.9 applies (rule 5.9 deals with other ways of service); or
(b) the court orders that the claim may be served in another way.
[Emphasis added].
Time for serving claim
5.3 (1) The claim and response form must be served on the defendant within 3 months of the date on which the claim was filed.
(2) If a claim is not served within that period, it is no longer of any effect. [Emphasis added].
Renewal of claim
4.15 If a claim is not served within the 3-monthperiod required by rule 5.3:
(a) the claimant may apply to the court to have the claim renewed; and
(b) if the claimant does not do this, the claim ceases to be of any effect. [Emphasis added].
4. In the case under appeal, the Appellant, dissatisfied with the decision of the Island Court (Land) dated 3rd October 2025 made regarding certain custom lands, filed an Application in the Supreme Court on 24 October 2025 seeking the supervisory powers of the Supreme Court on limited grounds pursuant to section 47 of the Customary Land Management Act of 2013. (Judicial Review case No.3191 of 2025).
5. On 13 February 2026, the learned judge looked into the file case (Judicial Review case No. 3191 of 2025) and found that no proof of service of the Application had been filed. The learned judge, then, issued the following (administrative) orders: -
1. “The Judicial Review Application was filed on 24 October 2025. No proof of service has been filed to show that the Application was served withing 3 months – r. 5.3, Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The claim is no longer effective. This file is closed.
Dated at Port Vila, this 13th day of February 2026.”
6. Later in the afternoon of the same date (13 February 2026), at about 3:00 pm, a member of the Appellant Family, Jean Baptiste Palaud, filed a sworn statement in the Supreme Court in Luganville, Santo, showing proof of service of the Application filed on 24 October 2025.
7. Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Fiuka, should have come back to the Supreme Court Judge who made the administrative order of 13 February 2026, and asked her to reconsider her decision considering the sworn statement of Jean Baptiste Palaud on proof of service of the Application filed on 13 February 2026. He did not do so.
8. Counsel for the Appellant did not apply to renew the claim (here the Application) pursuant to rule 4.15 (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
9. Instead, on 12 March 2026, he filed a notice and grounds of appeal against the orders of the Supreme Court dated 13 February 2026.
10. On 20 March 2026, at the Court of Appeal Review Management conference, the Appeal review judge asked Mr. Fiuka again whether he had considered applying to renew the claim?
11. Mr. Fiuka seemed to maintain his view that he would appeal instead of applying to renew the Application under Rule 4.15. (a) of the Civil Procedure Rule.
12. This is a misapprehension by counsel. After a claim is filed, that claim, and response form must be served on the Defendant personally (R. 5.2). The claim and response form must be served on the Defendant within 3 months of the date on which the claim was filed (R. 5.3). If a claim is not served within that period, it is no longer of any effect (R. 5.3 (2)). If a claim is not served within the 3 months period required by Rule 5.3: (a) the Claimant may apply to the Court to have the claim renewed; and (b) if the Claimant does not do this, the claim ceases to be of any effect (R. 4.15).
13. The sworn statement of Jean Baptiste Palaud filed on 13 February 2026 saying he had served the Respondents with the application for review filed on 24 October 2025, seemed to be incomplete because he did not say that he had given a copy of the Application to each Respondents. He did not say what he did to serve the Respondents in order to prove service has been properly undertaken.
14. The decision of this Court in Boar -v- Pamavari [2026] VUCA 13; Civil Appeal case 3193 of 2026 (13 February 2026) stated this on the personal service of a claim on a defendant at para.11: -
“11. A Supreme Court claim must be personally served on a defendant: rule 5.2 CPR. Rule 5.8 (1) of the CPR sets out what constitutes personal service on an individual. Personal service on an individual is valid if a person is given a copy of the document. If a person refuses the document, the document must be put down in their presence and the person must be told what it is. This will constitute personal service. Further, there must be evidence of what the person serving the document actually did to serve a party in order to prove service has been properly undertaken. Merely stating that a document has been served does not constitute proof of service.”
15. We find no error in the primary Judge’s order of 13 February 2026.
16. For the reasons set out above, the primary Judge was correct in closing the file case No 25/3191/SC/JUDR because there has been no proof of service filed to show that the claim for review (the Application) was served within 3 months pursuant to Rule 5.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application for leave to appeal is misconceived given the lack of service of the Application on the Respondents within the required period of 3 months. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the proposed appeal. The Appellant should now apply to have the order closing the file case in Judicial Review case No.3191 of 2025 set aside or to have the claim renewed.
17. Leave to appeal is, therefore, declined.
18. The Appeal is dismissed.
Costs
19. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Respondents are entitled to their costs of the Appeal in VT 30.000 against the Appellant. Such costs of VT 30.000 shall be shared equally between the First Respondent and the other group of Respondents comprising of the Fourth to Seventh Respondents.
Dated at Port Vila, this 15th May 2026.
BY THE COURT
Hon. Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek