Civil Appeal Case3964 of 2025 Vanua v Valuer General's Office
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Introduction
This is an appeal against a Supreme Court judgment dismissing the appellant Tari Vanua’s claim for wrongful forfeiture of a lease by the lessor, the Minister of Lands.
Mr Vanua sought relief from forfeiture from the first respondent the Valuer General. The Valuer General determined that the lease was forfeited. Mr Vanua then filed a Claim in the Supreme Court. The primary Judge dismissed the Claim with costs: Vanua v Valuer General’s Office [2025] VUSC 335. As we will explain, the crux of this appeal concerns the lessor’s compliance with s. 45 of the Land Leases Act [CAP. 163] (the ‘Act’).
Background
On 23 November 2000, the Director of Lands registered rural agricultural lease no. title. no 04/3422/002 between the Minister of Lands as lessor (the ‘Minister’) and Mr Vanua as lessee (the ‘002 lease’). The lease was for a term of 75 years.
Clause 3 of the 002 lease provided for Mr Vanua to pay annual rent of VT73,773.
Clauses 3(b) and (l) in Schedule A to the 002 lease contained the following conditions:
3. The lessee agree with the lessor as follows:
…
b) To promptly pay the rents hereby reserved or any new rent substituted in accordance with the provisions of this Lease.
…
l) To repair or replace as required, and keep in good repair all buildings together with all other constructions and fixtures in and upon the demised land or which during the tenancy may be erected or provided thereon.
It is not in dispute that the land rents payable under the lease fell into arrears. Mr Vanua had not paid land rents for a number of years.
On 25 May 2018, Mr Vanua and the Department of Lands entered into an agreement for Mr Vanua to pay monthly instalment payments of VT10,000 towards his outstanding land rents in respect of the 002 lease.
On 22 January 2019, the Minister issued a notice before forfeiture requiring Mr Vanua to provide an explanation by 20 February 2019 in relation to three alleged breaches of the 002 lease. The notice was served on Mr Vanua on 5 February 2019.
By a hand-written letter dated 12 February 2019 to the Minister, Mr Vanua responded to the notice before forfeiture. He explained why he had fallen into land rent arrears, that he had entered into an agreement with the Department of Lands for monthly payments of his rental arrears and with a plea to the Minister to consider.
On 27 February 2019, the Minister informed Mr Vanua by way of a letter that he had formally forfeited the 002 lease. The Minister wrote another letter to the Valuer General on the same date to enforce and cancel the 002 lease.
By a hand-written letter to the Valuer General, which was undated, Mr Vanua sought relief from forfeiture from the Valuer General. This letter was in almost identical terms to his letter to the Minister dated 12 February 2019.
On 16 April 2019, the Valuer General issued a notice of hearing for Land Lease Forfeiture Case No. 4 of 2019 (‘LLFC 19/4’). The hearing proceeded on 30 April 2019.
By determination dated 3 May 2019, the Value General refused relief to Mr Vanua and enforced the Minister’s right of forfeiture for breaches of rental payment conditions.
On 18 June 2019, the Director of Lands registered the forfeiture of the 002 lease.
On 14 August 2024, Mr Vanua filed his Claim in the Supreme Court. He alleged in the Claim that the Minister forfeited the 002 lease negligently and fraudulently as the Minister issued him a letter styled “Notice before forfeiture” dated 22 January 2019 requiring him to explain the alleged breaches of the lease but no notice to remedy the breaches. Then, forfeiture occurred. He also alleged that people had entered onto the property and caused him substantial losses. He sought orders to declare the forfeiture process a nullity, damages, interest and costs.
The Claim was disputed.
Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court recorded that the claim for damages was abandoned at the commencement of trial. The only issue, then, was the lawfulness of the forfeiture process. The primary Judge found that Mr Vanua failed to pay land rents from 2013 to 2018, failed to pay monthly instalments under his agreement with the Department of Lands and had failed to remedy the breaches by 20 February 2019 as required in the Minister’s notice of forfeiture dated 22 January 2019. He also found that the Minister had correctly issued a notice of forfeiture pursuant to s. 45 of the Act followed by forfeiture of the lease. Lastly, he found that Mr Vanua had not established any negligence or fraud on the part of the respondents. He dismissed the Claim with costs.
Appeal
Mr Vanua advanced several grounds of appeal, but they distil to the sole ground that the notice dated 22 January 2019 did not require Mr Vanua to remedy any breach of the lease and therefore did not comply with para. 45(b) of the Act. Mrs Manuariki submitted that the primary Judge therefore erred in finding that the Minister gave notice before forfeiture which complied with s. 45 of the Act, and also erred in his finding that Mr Vanua failed to remedy the breach by 20 February 2019 as required by the Minister in the notice dated 22 January 2019.
The respondents submitted that the Minister in the notice dated 22 January 2019 required Mr Vanua to provide a written statement justifying the breaches of the lease, therefore complying with s. 45 of the Act. During the appeal hearing, Mr Huri acknowledged that there was no requirement in the 22 January 2019 notice for Mr Vanua to remedy any breaches. He continued to maintain the contention that the primary Judge did not err in his decision. That was misconceived. As part of the State’s obligation as the model litigant, it should not pursue a point unreasonably.
Discussion
The respondents rely on the notice dated 22 January 2019 as the notice of forfeiture required by s. 45 of the Act. The notice set out, relevantly, as follows:
AND WHEREAS the lessee:
1. Failed to pay the yearly land rent as agreed upon in the lease schedule a number of years.
2. Failed to pay these rents as agreed upon in the lease schedule 3(b).
3. Failed to repair buildings on the land, fail to replant trees, coconut on the land.
NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE that I, ALFRED MAOH, Minister responsible for Lands as lessor, hereby require you to provide a written statement justifying the said breaches on or before 4.30pm of the 20th February 2019.
[emphasis added]
The appellant’s case is that the notice did not contain any requirement for Mr Vanua to remedy breaches of the lease hence did not comply with para. 45(b) of the Act, resulting in a wrongful forfeiture of lease. We agree.
A notice before forfeiture must comply with s. 45 of the Act which provides as follows:
45. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the lease, no lessor shall be entitled to exercise the right of forfeiture for the breach of any agreement or condition in the lease, whether expressed or implied, until the lessor has served on the lessee and every other person shown by the register to have an interest a notice in writing which –
(a) shall specify the particular breach complained of; and
(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, shall require the lessee to remedy the breach within such reasonable period as is specified in the notice; and
(c) in any case other than non-payment of rent may require the lessee to make compensation in money for the breach;
and the lessee has failed to remedy the breach within a reasonable time thereafter, if it is capable of remedy, and to make reasonable compensation in money if so required.
In Dinh v Samuel [2014] VUSC 143 at [66], Harrop J outlined the process envisaged by ss 43 to 46 of the Act as follows:
66. In summary, the process envisaged by sections 43 to 46 of the Act is as follows:
Subject to section 43 and to any provision to the contrary in the lease any lessor has the right to forfeit a lease if the lessee commits a relevant breach;
The lessor has a choice about how to exercise that right of forfeiture: it may either be by re-entry if the lessee is not in occupation, or it may be by reference to the Valuer-General;
Before any forfeiture may occur section 45 must be complied with: a notice before forfeiture must be served on the lessee setting out the particular breach complained of and if the breach is capable of remedy stating a deadline for compliance. Except where non-payment of rent is the basis for the notice it may require the lessee to make monetary compensation;
A further precondition to the right to forfeit is that the lessee must have failed to remedy the breach within a reasonable time thereafter, if it is capable of remedy, and to make reasonable compensation in money if so, required by the notice;
If all of those threshold criteria are met the lessor is then in a position under section 43 (a) or (b) to forfeit the lease;
When a lessee who has been served with a notice before forfeiture, or against whom the lessor is proceeding by reference to the Valuer-General or by re-entry to enforce his right of forfeiture, the lessee may apply to the Valuer-General for relief. On receipt of such an application the Valuer-General may grant or refuse relief as the Valuer-General, having regard to the proceedings and the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case, thinks fit and, if he grants relief, may grant it on such terms as he thinks fit.
I note there is no requirement that a lessor inform the lessee of his right to apply for relief; presumably a lessee, like everyone else, is deemed to know the law.
The notice dated 22 January 2019 did not contain any requirement for Mr Vanua to remedy the breaches set out in the notice. We therefore agree with the appellant that the Minister as the lessor of the 002 lease did not comply with para. 45(b) of the Act.
We observe also that the breaches set out in the 22 January 2019 notice were generalised. Particulars should have been set out for each of those breaches to inform Mr Vanua of the specific breaches complained of.
As the notice dated 22 January 2019 was non-compliant with s. 45 of the Act, the purported forfeiture process which followed was flawed from the outset. We agree that a wrongful forfeiture has occurred as the Minister as lessor did not comply with the pre-condition for forfeiture prescribed in s. 45 of the Act.
The appeal succeeds on this ground of appeal. We therefore need not consider the other grounds of appeal raised.
Result
The appeal is allowed.
The judgment dated 3 December 2025 is set aside and substituted by the following orders:
Order that judgment is entered in favour of the appellant;
Declaration that the forfeiture of leasehold title. no 04/3422/002 is unlawful; and
Order cancelling the registration of the forfeiture of leasehold title. no 04/3422/002 on 18 June 2019.
The respondents are to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of VT75,000 within 28 days.
The respondents are to pay the appellant’s costs of the Supreme Court proceedings fixed in the amount of VT200,000 within 28 days.
DATED at Port Vila this 15th day of May, 2026.
BY THE COURT
Hon. Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek