All nine cases concern the intersection of customary land, registered perpetual estates under the Land and Titles Act (Cap 133), and trust principles in Solomon Islands law. They explore when registered land is (or is not) held on trust for customary landowning groups/beneficiaries, the rights of beneficiaries/trustees, standing to sue, limitation issues, and remedies (injunctions, receivers, rectification, replacement of trustees, or devolution under the Wills, Probate and Administration Act (Cap 33)).
- Recognition of trusts depends heavily on express declarations, statutory compliance (Part IV vs Part V acquisition), agreements, or statutory exceptions (e.g., s 105 WPA Act).
- Customary membership alone rarely creates a trust.
- Beneficiary rights are protected once a trust is established.
- Survivorship (s 200 LTA) and indefeasibility prevail unless fraud/mistake or a clear trust is proven.
Comparative Table
| Case (Year) | Court / Judge | Core Facts | Trust Recognised? | Court’s Key Reasoning (Facts-Driven) | Outcome | Key Distinction / Difference |
| Maeke v Pukuvati (2018) | SBCA (CA) | 1980 declaration expressly held land as trustees for Gaubata & Kakau tribes; beneficiaries challenged trustees. | Yes (statutory/customary trust) | Express 1980 declaration created trust; Kakau tribe had beneficial interest; inadequate evidence on custom representation; personal beneficiary rights ignored. | Appeal allowed; remitted for rehearing. | Express declaration + beneficiary standing; CA level. |
| Tafea v Ne’e (2018) | SBHC (Brown J) | 1993 statutory declaration for Ne’e/Indukelema family group; subdivisions; survivorship to sole owner. | Yes (statutory trusts under ss 200/214 LTA) | 1993 declaration created binding trusts; survivorship correct but trustee still accountable to all beneficiaries; no fraud/mistake proven. | Claim dismissed (no rectification). | Clear statutory declaration; no rectification without fraud. |
| Aranga Estate, Re (2025) | SBHC (Aulanga PJ) | 1970 registration in names of two as trustees for Kwaafunia group; deceased trustees; probate application. | Yes (trust property) | Statutory declaration made land trust property, not personal estate; probate inapplicable; abuse of process. | Probate refused; land is trust property. | Probate vs trust land distinction; no trust deed needed if declaration exists. |
| Kuve v Ragoso (2002) | SBHC (Kabui J) | 1988 transfer/registration to 5 trustees for Mbava tribe; no express trust instrument; tribal membership claim. | No (no statutory/equitable trust) | No Part IV compliance; no express instrument; tribal membership alone insufficient for constructive/implied trust. | Declaration & removal refused. | Tribal membership/custom alone ≠ trust; pre-Maeke. |
| Sau’eha v Tema (2016) | SBHC (Keniapisia PJ) | 2007 registration in Tema’s name after customary acquisition; 2009 Conveyance Authority; mining dispute. | Yes (arguable resulting/constructive trust) | Part V acquisition + CA + family contributions created triable trust issue; beneficiary standing; environmental harm. | Injunction continued; strike-out refused. | Injunction granted on triable trust + irreparable harm. |
| Tofe v Fera (1999) | SBHC (Kabui J) | Family-built ships operated by defendant; community asset claim. | Prima facie constructive trust (but receiver refused) | Family agreement + contributions = constructive trust; but no peril to property for receiver. | Receiver refused; limitation left for trial. | Movable property (ships); receiver test (peril required). |
| Tiva v Manu (2019) | SBHC (Kouhota PJ) | 1975 registration in 5 joint owners; 3 deceased; no trust deed; lease income dispute. | No | No trust deed/instrument; Part V acquisition; survivorship under s 200 LTA applies; “trustee” label customary only. | Claim dismissed; survivorship prevails. | No deed = no trust; pure survivorship. |
| Ri’imana v Fairamo (2017) | SBHC (Brown J) | 1969 compulsory acquisition/registration in deceased’s name; intestate; Kwaibale customary land. | Yes (for devolution purposes) | Perpetual estate within tribal boundary = not residuary estate; s 105 WPA Act mandates Local Court customary determination. | Referred to Local Court; held on trust pending. | s 105 WPA Act exception; intestate devolution. |
| Perogolo v Laugana (2011) | SBHC (Chetwynd J) | Tasahe land registered to Gaubata trustees; 1993 declaration to excise portion for Kakau sub-tribe + tsupu ceremony. | Yes (enforceable agreement by trustees) | Trustees bound by majority beneficiary will + 1993 declaration + fulfilled custom ceremony; specific performance. | Specific performance ordered. | Trustee agreement + custom ceremony = binding. |
Key Differences and Distinctions (Facts-Based)
- Express Declaration vs No Declaration
- With declaration (Maeke, Tafea, Aranga, Sau’eha): Clear trust created; beneficiaries have strong rights.
- No declaration (Tiva v Manu, Kuve): No trust; survivorship or absolute title applies. Court repeatedly cites absence of trust instrument or Part IV compliance.
- Part IV (Land Settlement) vs Part V (Direct Acquisition)
- Part IV cases trigger statutory trusts/s 195 (Tafea implicitly).
- Part V cases (Tiva, Kuve, Ri’imana) do not automatically create trusts unless additional evidence (declaration/agreement).
- Remedies Sought
- Injunction / Receiver: Granted where triable trust + irreparable harm/peril (Sau’eha – mining; Tofe – refused for lack of peril).
- Replacement of Trustees / Specific Performance: Allowed where agreement or trust established (Perogolo, Maeke).
- Probate / Rectification: Refused for trust land (Aranga, Tiva).
- Customary Devolution: Mandated by statute where land within tribal boundary (Ri’imana – s 105 WPA).
- Standing
- Beneficiaries have personal equitable rights (Maeke, Sau’eha).
- Customary representative standing (r 3.42 CPR) supplemented by beneficiary status (Maeke, Sau’eha).
- Pure customary membership insufficient (Kuve).
- Limitation & Continuing Wrong
- Only Tofe directly engages Limitation Act; continuing operation of ships = continuing wrong (but receiver still refused on merits).
Overall Pattern
The courts consistently protect express or clearly implied trusts arising from declarations, agreements, or statutory provisions, while refusing to imply trusts from custom or tribal membership alone. Facts drive the outcome: an express 1980/1993 declaration or fulfilled custom ceremony almost always leads to trust recognition and relief; bare registration without more leads to dismissal or survivorship. Later cases (2016–2025) build on earlier ones (Kuve 2002, Perogolo 2011) to refine beneficiary rights and the limits of customary “trustee” labels.
This table and analysis capture the essential similarities (trust vs no-trust divide) and distinctions (facts + statutory pathway) across the nine judgments.