The plaintiff claimed that he was the lawful heir to a town and tax allotments at Pea, and that the Minister of Lands had unlawfully granted them to his young brother. 

He therefore sought orders that the registrations of the allotments in his younger brother's name be cancelled and instead registered in his name.

Hon Mr Justice Niu in a ruling on July 1 said the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim and dismissed it.

Dispute

The Land Court heard their late brother Lotolua Tu'alau (known as Vilitoni Moala) was the holder of the town and tax allotments. He died on June 7, 2007.

The plaintiff did not apply for registration of these allotments within 12-months from the date Lotolua died.

The town and tax allotments reverted to the estate holder Lavaka on June 6, 2008.

Then on April 10, 2013 the young brother applied for the allotments' grant and registration and his applications were consented to by the estate holder.

The deed of grant for the town allotment was issued to him in 2017, followed by the deed for the tax allotment in 2018. At all times, the younger brother was in possession of these allotments.

In 2019, the plaintiff then brought this proceeding claiming that he was the heir to the said town and tax allotments.

Land Act

Meanwhile, both defendants disputed the plaintiff's claim.

They said neither the plaintiff nor any other person claimed the said allotments as heir within 12-months from the death of the last holder, Lotolua and in accordance with S.87 of the Land Act, the allotments reverted to the estate holder.

They also said that the younger brother properly applied, with the consent of the estate holder for grant of the allotments to him, and the Minister of Lands granted them to him according to the law.

The judge agreed with the younger brother's counsel that the plaintiff's side wrongly argued that the provision supported his claim, and that his failure to register the allotment as heir was not a bar to the grant of the allotment to him.

“That is not what the provision says. It has nothing to do with the failure of the heir to make his claim of the allotment within the stipulated 12-months because S.87 instead provides that the allotment shall revert to the estate holder.

“Neither the heir nor the Minister can do anything about it,” he said.

The judge also agreed that because S.87 had provided that the allotments were to revert to the estate holder, when the plaintiff did not claim them within 12-months of his brother's death, there was no longer anything in respect of which the plaintiff is heir. 

“There is nothing he can now claim as heir. That is the intention of S.87.”

The judge ruled S.87 means exactly what it provided, namely that the allotment reverts to the estate holder and that it no longer exists as an allotment.

However, it can be re-granted to another person as was the case in the present case.

The claim was then dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.