By Linny Folau
Pelehake Estate holder, HSH Prince Tu'ipelehake, has won an interim injunction in the Land Court, halting further quarrying on the tax allotment known as 'Pipi' at Pelehake, Tongatapu, until a trial in October 2026 over a dispute about its registration.
Justice Tupou KC delivered the ruling on 23 June in proceedings brought by the Prince against Losini Koloamatangi, Luong Quarry Company Ltd, Lida Holdings Ltd and the Minister of Lands. The Prince argued that the registration of 'Pipi' to Losini Koloamatangi was wrong and contrary to the original grant made by the late Prince Fatafehi Tu'ipelehake through a ministerial Savingram issued by Baron Tuita on 10 July 1986.
The Prince sought orders restraining Luong Quarry and Lida Holdings, along with their servants and agents, from trespassing and from removing vegetation, rocks and overburden from the area. The application was opposed by all defendants except the Minister of Lands, who did not participate.
Prince Tu'ipelehake is the estate holder of Pelehake, where the disputed land is located.
The first defendant, Losini Koloamatangi, is the registered holder of the land, described as a tax allotment under Deed of Grant Book 481 folio 33 and known as 'Pipi'.
The second defendant, Luong Quarry Company Ltd., holds the registered lease over the whole of Pipi for quarrying, while the third defendant, Lida Holdings Ltd., is carrying out quarrying on neighbouring land that has intruded onto part of Pipi. The Minister of Lands is responsible for granting allotments, including Pipi.
The Prince said the registration of Pipi in the name of the first defendant on 21 January 2024 was unlawful because the boundaries in Deed of Grant Book 481 folio 33 were contrary to the original grant and ministerial directions issued in 1986. He said the Minister of Lands, after being given a copy of the 1986 direction, ordered a re-survey of Pipi's boundaries to comply with those directions, but failed to complete the process. He is seeking a fresh deed of grant with corrected surveyed boundaries, cancellation of the current deed of grant for Pipi, and cancellation of the registered lease in the name of the second defendant over the existing boundaries. He also said quarrying by the second defendant on the disputed area continued, and that the third defendant's activities on neighbouring land had infringed the current boundaries of the land.
The judge said it was accepted that the re-survey of Pipi under the 1986 directions had been completed, but no deed of grant had been issued. Correspondence from the Minister of Lands to the Prince had been ignored, and the deed of grant and lease remained in place.
The Prince accepted that the first defendant's descendants had farmed a large area of the Pelehake estate on behalf of the estate holder. The Minister of Lands accepted that a person named Leone had registered a town allotment in 1913 and a tax allotment in 1929, although without defined boundaries, and that no deed of grant had been registered in Leone's name, or anyone else's, until 2024. The judge said it was right to accept that Leone may have registered an area named Pipi on the Tu'ipelehake estate with an undetermined area, and that without a deed of grant the area of that holding was not finalised until 2024.
Among her findings, the judge said Pipi is currently situated on 10 acres different from the area approved by the late Prince Fatafehi Tu'ipelehake in 1986 and without the consent of the current estate holder, contrary to section 8 of the Act, which requires a town allotment not to exceed 1618.7 square metres and a tax allotment not to exceed 3.3387. The judge said she was satisfied that the registration of Pipi in the name of the first defendant was contrary to law because it was done without the consent of the estate holder and exceeded the statutory area for a tax allotment. The Minister of Lands also accepted that the registration was a mistake.
Losses
On losses, the first defendant said he was likely to suffer a loss of $400,000 for breach of the commercial lease with the second defendant. The second defendant said the contract was worth $900,000, 90 percent of which had been paid, and that additional losses would include the loss of a 20-year lease and a 10 to 15-year quarry permit, as well as costs of setting up the quarry and hiring machinery from the third defendant, valued at about $1 million pa'anga. The third defendant said it stood to lose more than $4 million through supply contracts and taxes if quarrying stopped.
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the current quarry operations were immense and that the surface of Pipi was now defaced and hollow, making restoration impossible.
The judge said the plaintiff had provided an undertaking as to damages, and while the defendants questioned his ability to meet that undertaking, there was equally nothing to show that the first, second and third defendants had the capacity to pay damages for harm done to Pipi if the plaintiff succeeded.
In her 23-page written judgment, the judge found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case against the defendants. She also said the Minister of Lands' pleadings supported rectifying the location of Pipi rather than maintaining it. Considering that position, the plaintiff's prima facie case and the balance of convenience, she found that immediately stopping quarrying was the lesser risk compared with allowing further damage, destruction of the allotment and the removal and sale of quarried material.
The judge granted the interim injunction and ordered that the first, second and third defendants, along with their servants and agents, be prohibited from trespassing, removing vegetation, rocks and overburden, and conducting quarrying activities on the tax allotment at Pelehake registered as Pipi to the first defendant under Deed of Grant 481 folio 33 and leased to the second defendant under Lease No. 10466, pending the hearing and determination of the case.
Costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the cause. The parties were also ordered to be ready for trial in the week beginning 5 October 2026.
Counsel were: Mr S. Etika for the Plaintiff, Mrs J. Lomu for the First and Third Defendants, Mrs T. Cokanasiga for the Second Defendant, Mr S. Sisifa SG for the Fourth Defendant.
