Two Contradicting Court Orders on Afega & Leauva’a Land Dispute

By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia, SAMOA – 05 April 2024 – There are two different court orders handed down by the Lands and Titles Court (LTC) and the Supreme court in the continuing land dispute between the villages of Afega and Leauva’a and it will be up to the police which one to execute.

Last month, the President of LTC, Lesatele Rapi Vaai issued an eviction order against some of Leauvaa families and gave them 4 weeks to vacate the land.

The 4 weeks ends today 05 April 2024.

Yesterday, Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese issued an interim order against the LTC order of eviction and stopped Afega’s excavation work on the disputed land.

Counsel for Afega, Tanya Toailoa in her submission yesterday raised the question of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to intervene on a decision already made by the Lands & Titles Court.

She argued that the Supreme Court cannot make a decision on the matter until the question of jurisdiction is answered and pointed out that His Honour the Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese does not have jurisdiction.

However, His Honour said he does have jurisdiction.

Toailoa reminded the court that there are now two contradicting court orders and wanted to know which order should the police execute today.

She continued to raise her concerns that if police decided on either of the two orders, it could create more problems.

Counsel for Afega village Tanya Toailoa with lawyer Fuimaono Ainu’u leaving court.

“It is up to the police to decide and that is the outcome based on the laws passed by Parliament,” said Chief Justice Perese.

Toailoa said yesterday’s proceedings was based on Chief Justice Perese’s instructions to all parties to prepare submissions on the issue of jurisdiction.

Yet he made a ruling before the question of jurisdiction was answered, said Toailoa.

It is now up to the police whether to follow the LTC ruling or the Supreme Court order.

The interim order is extended to next week until the Chief Justice rules on the matter.

The parties to the hearing are people of Leauva’a (Applicant), Alii ma Faipule of Afega (Second Respondent) and the Office of the Attorney General for the Lands and Titles Court (First Respondent).

Application for Urgent Interim Injunction
Salā Josephine Stowers on behalf of the families of Leauva’a sought orders from the Supreme Court against the Alii ma Faipule of Afega’s work conducted on the disputed land at Leauva’a.

Counsel for Leauvaa families, Salā Josephine Stowers with one of the village matais leaving court

Salā applied for an interim order to stop work conducted by the people of Afega on the disputed land, and an interim injunction based on the fact that there is a pending appeal before the Court.

Her application was filed under a Special Appeal to which presiding Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese asked why it was not filed under Leave to Appeal.

Sala said there is a substantive issue of the law that needs to be addressed and that there is still uncertainty with the Lands and Titles Court system.

“The other reason is that the Lands and Titles Court of Appeal is yet to be constituted,” said Salā.

“So there is no available body to grant the appeal, is that your point?” asked Chief Justice Perese.

“Correct,” Salā responded.

Violation of rights    
Salā also highlighted the violations of her client’s fundamental rights as their main argument.

Chef Justice Perese wanted to know why the Court should grant interim orders.

Sala said she filed for an interlocutory injunction last month citing reasons why she believed there is a serious case to be heard and this is based on the violations of her client’s rights and the pending appeal hearing.

She then referred to past events where her clients have been threatened and their livelihood destroyed by the excavation work on the land by the Second Respondent.

The incompleteness of the LTC system only delayed proceedings and is a clear breach of her client’s fundamentals rights, she said.

“The excavation work has to stop until the appeal is heard,” she argued.

“In the affidavit of Siaosi Sagote, his plantation, crops and passion fruits garden have all been destroyed by the work. He is upset as has lost his income to support his family, church and village activities,” said Sala.

She also pointed out the continuous threats against her clients and that work now extends out upon her clients lands.

Chief Justice Perese pointed out perhaps what she could ask for is “adequate compensation” for the destroyed property, to which Sala said “no, we are not seeking compensation.”

“Perhaps that’s a matter for later,” she said.