A 96-year-old man from Tonga living in Wellington, New Zealand, has successfully reclaimed his ancestral land after a ruling by the Nuku’alofa Land Court ordered the eviction of long-term occupants.
The ruling on June 18 resulted from neglecting a house and land in Niutōua, Tongatapu, which caused both to fall into disrepair.
The court was informed that the plaintiff’s warnings to the tenants had been disregarded.
A second occupant was permitted to live in the house without the landlord’s consent.
The eviction letter, which instructed the tenants to vacate the premises within seven days, was also disregarded.
As a result, the landlord filed a lawsuit against the defendants.
According to the court document, the landlord was 96-year-old Asaeli Niu’ila, also known as Tevita Kaulamatoa.
He was a teacher in Tonga before emigrating to New Zealand in 1987.
He allowed his neighbour, Tengange Filimoemaka, and his wife, Kesaia Filimoemaka, who was also a close relative, to occupy his house. The couple has one son, Sione Vakofe Filimoemaka.
After Tengange and Kesaia died, Sione, the second defendant, and his wife, Telesia, the first defendant, continued to occupy the house.
Disputed Property Agreement
Niu’ila was unhappy with the Filimoemakas’ failure to maintain his property and had issued them multiple warnings.
He finally insisted that they vacate his house.
Sione rejected the eviction demand, arguing that he had the right to occupy and own the house. He claimed that Niu’ila had promised him he could continue living there “because he would return it.”
Sione also claimed in court that his father renovated the house in 1996 “plus his own expenses of $47,800” and asked that Niu’ila pay it back.
Niu’ila did not accept it, saying that it was necessary for Sione’s benefit, and Justice Petunia Tupou KC agreed with Niu’ila.
Justice Tupou said: “This is an unfortunate case where the Second Defendant has simply misunderstood the arrangement between the Plaintiff and his parents or has been misled as to his interests/rights with respect to the subject Land.”
She ruled in favour of Niu’ila.
She also ordered the Filimoemakas to vacate Niu’ila’s town allotment immediately or by agreement with him.
“The Defendants are to pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed.”
