|
Under the traditional rule, which was the only legally recognized option until 1984, hereditary right is determined by a candidate's relation (blood tie) to his nearest ancestor holding the title in question.
Under the Sotoa rule, hereditary right is determined by tracing a candidate's lineage to the original titleholder, not to any of the later titleholders.
In the April ruling, the Court determined that Galu, utilizing the "traditional rule", prevailed over the first criterion, and also the third criterion of "forcefulness, character, personality and knowledge of Samoan customs". No candidate prevailed over the second criterion of "support from family clans" while on the fourth criterion of "value to family, village, and country", the candidates were equal.
SOTOA RULE
In his motion, Mosooi argued that the Court should have used the "Sotoa rule" (instead of the "traditional rule") in determining which candidate prevailed as having the best hereditary right. He argues that the "traditional rule" is unconstitutional.
The Court did not review Mosooi's argument that the traditional rule is unconstitutional as it was not an issue raised during the Satele title trial (which by law is a prerequisite for motions for reconsideration), but the Court did look at his argument about the Sotoa rule because it was raised at trial, though not by Mosooi but by another candidate.
The Court explained that when the contestants agree on the identity of the original titleholder or common ancestor in the family, the Sotoa rule can be less arbitrary than the traditional rule in determining which candidate has the best hereditary right.
The judges said that the Sotoa rule has been criticized by both the Appellate and the Land and Titles divisions.
For example, one case raised the problem of applying the Sotoa rule when there's a disagreement as to the original titleholder while another case suggested that the Sotoa rule was based solely on the particular customs of the Sotoa family in determining best hereditary right and therefore should not be broadly applied to matai title determinations of all families, since customs and traditions differ from family to family.
In another matai case in 1987, the judges noted that the Court then "injected even more uncertainty into the [best hereditary right] inquiry" and announced a rule, which the parties had merely stipulated should apply to their particular family, "purporting to apply to all cases" when it should have simply accepted the stipulation for purposes of that case only.
Consequently, the judges say the Land and Titles Division has limited the use of the Sotoa rule to situations where: the candidates trace their ancestry back to the same original titleholder or a common ancestor, thereby agreeing on a largely harmonious family history; and a special consideration is presented, such as when some clans of the family have not held the title for several generations even though its members are entitled to have the opportunity to hold the title.
In his motion, Mosooi argues that the Sotoa rule should have been applied in this case because his part of the family has been deprived of the Satele title for many generations. However, the Court rejected his argument.
First, the judges say that the justification for the Sotoa rule when clans have not held the title for generations appears to have been raised by the Court in "dicta" (nonprecedential editorializing by the Court) as an equitable remedy left to the Court's discretion.
Therefore, the judges say the Court is under no obligation to use the Sotoa rule in this case for this equitable purpose.
Additionally, the judges say Mosooi's argument is "fundamentally flawed". They say it is based on the fact that his immediate family has not held the matai title in the Satele family for several generations.
"However, equitable use of the Sotoa rule is justified when clans of a family have not held the title," wrote the judges. "Mosooi and his immediate family are members of the Taeotafa clan, the same clan to which Galu belongs and the same clan from which the previous Satele titleholder was chosen."
The judges noted that granted no one from Mosooi's immediate family has held the Satele title since Satele Talili (Mosooi's great-great-grandfather), but other members of his clan have.
Therefore, the judges say conditions justifying the equitable use of the Sotoa rule are absent in this case.
According to Mosooi, had the Sotoa rule been applied, he would have prevailed in the best hereditary criterion.
The judges say this is the very situation that gave the Appellate Court pause concerning the use of Sotoa rule for equitable purposes, namely where a candidate prevailing on the best hereditary right criterion is not ultimately awarded the disputed title.
The judges say that in this case, no candidate prevailed over the second criterion (family support) but Galu did have consensus support of one of the three clans of the Satele family while Mosooi did not have the consensus support of any clan.
The judges say that considering Mosooi's failure to prevail in any of the other three criteria and Galu's strong showing in both family support and overall leadership characteristics, "Mosooi likely would not have received the Satele title anyway had he prevailed on the best hereditary right."
JUDGE BIAS
Mosooi also argued that one of the associate judges who presided over the case was biased in Galu's favor. He contends that Galu is the uncle of Fagaoali'i Satele Sunia, whose husband, former Gov. Tauese P.F. Sunia, appointed this particular associate judge.
Besides the fact that Mosooi failed to raised this issue at trial , the Court said that his argument "is tenuous at best and fails to show actual or even apparent bias on the part of any of the sitting judges in this case."
Galu was represented by Sharron Rancourt and Mosooi by Marshall Ashley.
Reach the reporter at la@samoanews.com.
© Osini Faleatasi Inc. dba Samoa News reserves all rights.
|
