The Land Court ordered the registration of a tax allotment in 'Utulau to a plaintiff in a land dispute. The plaintiff went to the court when he discovered that the same lot he had applied for was granted to another person.

The case was between the plaintiff Schumway Mataele and three defendants, ‘Uluaki ‘o Vaiola Manu (first defendant), Prince Tupouto’a (second defendant) and the Minister of Lands.

The plaintiff claimed that a tax allotment (lot 92) at 'Utulau in the estate of the Crown Prince Tupouto'a had lawfully been granted to him by the Minister of Lands in 2016, with the consent of the estate holder, Tupouto’a.

However, he claimed the Minister subsequently and unlawfully granted it, with the subsequent consent of the estate holder, to the first defendant instead. 

The plaintiff then sought court orders that the grant made to the first defendant be cancelled and that the grant already made to him be registered and issued in his name instead.

Hon. Mr Justice Niu in a ruling on July 24 ruled in favour of the plaintiff, after he was satisfied that the plaintiff had already been lawfully granted lot 92 as his tax allotment, when the Minister gave his direction on September 30, 2016 that the deed of grant of the plaintiff be prepared for registration, and that the grant was unlawfully cancelled.

He ordered for the Minister of Lands to pay the plaintiff's costs in these proceedings.

No order for costs was made regarding the other defendants.

Dispute

The plaintiff told the Court, he was the second eldest of the legitimate sons of Malakai Tokuolava Mataele, commonly called Hameti Mataele. He was heir to his land.

The eldest son, Peni had been taken and fostered by Hawaiians in Hawaii.

He said, Hameti made him heir by giving him the land, which had been gifted to him by the then Crown Prince Tupouto'a at 'Utulau. He had gone and lived in the U.S in 1984 and after Hameti died he then came to Tonga to register the land in his name in 2015.

The plaintiff applied for the same tax allotment on September 22, 2015. He was surprised to find out the Minister granted the tax allotment he had applied for to the first defendant on August 8, 2018, while he was still awaiting the advice from the Land Office about the registration of the tax allotment in his name.

Defence

However, the first defendant said that this tax allotment had been given to him by the estate holder in 1971 and that he had been cultivating it as his tax allotment until he applied for grant of it, with the consent of the estate holder in 2018, and the Minister of Lands lawfully granted it to him and issued to him his deed of grant.

He said that the plaintiff's application was in error because the lot that the plaintiff should have applied for was lot 90, and furthermore, he was cultivating lot 92 at the time that the plaintiff made his application in 2015.

The second defendant in his defence said, that he had consented to the grant of the tax allotment to the plaintiff upon his understanding that there was no one already farming and cultivating the tax allotment.

When he was informed that the first defendant was farming and cultivating the tax allotment at the time that the plaintiff was asking him to consent to the grant of the allotment to him, he agreed to the grant of the allotment to the first defendant, and not to the plaintiff.

The Minister in his defence, said that (subsequent to his approval of the plaintiff's application) he conducted an investigation of the land in dispute and found out that the first defendant was currently farming the land and that the plaintiff was informed of it and that the land he had applied for was not available to be granted to him.

Different lot?

One of the many things the judge examined and asked was whether or not the plaintiff had wrongly applied for lot 92.

The first defendant claimed and gave evidence that the lot, which the plaintiff should have applied for was lot 90, because that was the lot which his father, Hameti Mataele had farmed for some five years from 1982 or so and which Fred Sevele subsequently fenced up as a cow paddock.

The judge, said that evidence conflicted with the direction which the man from 'Utulau in the surveyor's office gave to the plaintiff, (which was that the lot which Hameti Mataele farmed was lot 92).

“More importantly, lot 90 was already leased by Fred Sevele on March 3, 1982 (until 2 March 2032). So it could not have been farmed by Hameti Mataele in 1982 or so as the first defendant now claims,” said the judge.

The judge was satisfied that the plaintiff had applied for the correct lot 92.

He ordered the Ministry of Lands to cancel the deed of grant in the name of the first defendant and to issue a new deed of grant for the plaintiff and have it registered under the law.