A Digest of Case Law on the Human Rights of Women - Asia Pacific ...

John Noel (as representative <strong>of</strong> the descendants <strong>of</strong> Crero Toto deceased)) v Obed Toto (Pacific Islands: Vanuatu)
CRERO TOTO
=
Wife #1 Wife #2 Wife #3
Juli Obed Nana Sera
John Noel – Applicant
This action was brought by John Noel (nephew <strong>of</strong> Obed Toto and grandson <strong>of</strong>
Crero Toto) on behalf <strong>of</strong> other members <strong>of</strong> the Toto family seeking the following
declarations. The first declaration sought was that John Noel and those he
represented were custom owners <strong>of</strong> Champagne Beach and that they were equally
entitled to benefits from activities conducted on or from the land. The applicant was
also seeking a declaration that they were entitled to an account <strong>of</strong> all pr<strong>of</strong>its from the
land since the decision in the Supreme Court naming Obed Toto as custom owner.
Finally, they sought a declaration which would set out the appropriate management
and financial control <strong>of</strong> the land.
The applicant argued that the custom <strong>of</strong> East Santo was that brothers and sisters had
equal rights to custom land and together owned the land. The custom owner was only
the person who held the land on behalf <strong>of</strong> the rest <strong>of</strong> the clan. As the son <strong>of</strong> Obed
Toto’s sister, he had a right to his grandfather’s custom land through his mother and
therefore could claim a right in the income derived from it.
Obed Toto, the respondent, argued that according to the custom <strong>of</strong> Santo, he owned
the land and therefore also owned any monies derived from it. Article 74 <strong>of</strong> the
Constitution provides that land ownership must be determined according to custom.
It is customary that the eldest male child inherits the title <strong>of</strong> land ownership from his
father upon his death and becomes the sole decision-maker with regard to the land.
Obed Toto claimed that ‘he could do with it as he wished’ as he was the owner <strong>of</strong> the
land.
Obed Toto also argued that that when daughters marry, they lose their custom
entitlement to their father’s land. Thus when his sister Julie married outside the
family she consequently derived rights to land from her husband and her children
82