Suruvanu v Roupon

Court Supreme Court

Case type Civil Appeal

Case number 2529 of 2025

Hearing date 28 Apr 2026

Decision date 20 Oct 2026

Official PDF document

Judge(s) Justice Oliver Saksak

Appellant(s) Preia Suruvanu, Olri Suruvanua representing Family Suruvanua

Respondent(s) Valolo Roupon, Ravate Roupon Representing Family Roupon - Respondents

Counsel Jim Vohor for the Appellants; Marisan P Manuariki for the Respondents

DECISION

1. This decision is formulated on the papers as agreed by Counsel on 28th April 2026.

2. This is a simple appeal against the ruling of a Magistrate issued on 21 November 2023 on two grounds-

a) That the Magistrate erred in fact and law in placing weight on the decisions of informal tribunals to decide in favour of the respondents, and

b) That the Magistrate erred in law and fact in ruling in favour of the respect of the whole coconut plantation located at Jaranavusvus village.

3. In deciding this appeal I have considered the papers contained in the Appeal Books A dated 28 April 2026 and B filed on 28 July 2026 and the submissions filed by the appellants on 24 October 2025 and those filed by the respondents on 5 May 2026.

4. I consider that there is only one ground of the appeal. The ground in (a) is basically the same ground as in (b).

5. In his ruling the Magistrate considered the credibility of decisions of the informal tribunals which he stated in paragraph 16 of the ruling that affirmed interest of the claimant’s ownership. At paragraph 17 the Magistrate stated there was not enough evidence to deviate from the decisions of past informal courts. Then at paragraph 18 the Magistrate found on the evidence before him that the claimant had proved his claim on the balance of probabilities.

6. However I find those considerations to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other.

7. I find there was evidence before the Magistrate by sworn statements in support of the defence from Jif Taekala Vanua Karae filed on 14 February 2023 and from Tiwae Karea Vutran also of even date which were evidence as to who planted the coconuts. Those evidence were not replied to by the claimants at any time.

8. And it is obvious the Magistrate did not have regard to those evidence in making his findings and rulings. Had he done so, the result would have been different.

9. Accordingly I am satisfied the appellants have demonstrated an error by the Magistrate. Therefore the appeal is allowed.

10. The Ruling dated 21 November 2023 is hereby quashed.

11. There will be no order as to costs. Each party is to bear their own costs.

DATED at Port Vila this 20th day of October 2026
BY THE COURT

Hon. Justice Oliver A Saksak