Church dispute in Court

The question of whether the Congregational Christian Church of Samoa (C.C.C.S) can be sued as a body was the center of legal dispute in the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The issue surfaced during the hearing of a lawsuit brought by Reverend Kerita Reupena against C.C.C.S. and the Committee of Elders.

Members of the Committee who are second respondents in the lawsuit include the Chairman of the C.C.C.S., Reverend Elder Tavita Roma, Deputy Chairman, Reverend Elder Tautiaga Senara, Reverend Elder Kerisiano Soti and Reverend Elder Peleti Toailoa.

Rev. Reupena is suing the church and others over their decision to strip him of two senior positions in the church – including that of being the Director of the Queensland District in Australia.

The complainant is represented by lawyer, Leulua’iali’i Olinda Woodroffe.

She is assisted by Leali’ifano Dr. Iopu Tanielu. Lawyer Leota Tima Leavai is representing the Church. Presiding is Chief Justice, His Honour Patu Tiava’asu’e Falefatu Sapolu.

During the proceedings, Ms. Leavai disputed C.C.C.S being the first respondent. “The name of the first defendant given in the documents referred basically to C.C.C.S. which is registered as a Charitable Trust,” Ms. Leavai told the Court.

“C.C.C.S. is a trading name used in the Constitution. My instruction is the defendant is not named… the appropriate defendant to be sued is the Board of Trustees of the C.C.C.S.”

But Leulua’iali’i disagreed.

“I respectfully ask my learned friend to provide evidence of what she is claiming,” said Leulua’iali’i. Because in my understanding, and I did go through the Constitution, it can be sued.”

At that point, Chief Justice Patu asked Leulua’iali’i: “Does the Constitution of C.C.C.S. say that C.C.C.S. can be sued or cannot be sued?”

“It is silent on that issue,” she responded.

“But in the absence of any express direction, it is my respectful submission that my case is to be heard. They were served all documents and had time to prepare and she does not have evidence.”

But Chief Justice Patu insisted. According to His Honour, from his experience as a lawyer and a Judge, when a church is registered as a Charitable Trust, Ms. Leavai is correct in pointing out that it is the Board of Trustees that is registered.

“And customarily the Board of Trustees is the body to be sued on behalf of the church, or be sued on its behalf,” said Chief Justice Patu.

At that point, His Honour demanded to see proof.

A 30 minutes recess was called to enable Ms. Leavai to obtain documents to confirm whether the church can be sued. Ms. Leavai returned with a certificate of registration of the C.C.C.S.

But His Honour Patu was not satisfied. “It still does not answer the question that I asked,” he said. “The documentation file does not say if the church can be sued or not…it’s only the certificate of the incorporation of the church.”

Another issue that Ms. Leavai raised was how the second respondents were served.

“The General Secretary, Rev. Iutisone Salevao advised (me) yesterday he was given these set of documents of the process server whom he was given the documents and accepted them,” Ms. Leavai told the Court.

“But there was no reference to the respondents. He asked if I could inform the Court that the church office does not accept services of the second respondents…they are named on their individual capacity and one of them lives in Sydney.”

Leulua’iali’i objected to this.

“Rev. Iutisone, who is a lawyer, read the document and is quite familiar with what it is,” said Leulua’iali’i.

“The names of the respondents were on the top and he respectfully accepted and signed the documents. It’s not like the documents were served without the name of the respondents.”

She asked, “Why did he signed it if he didn’t have the authority to do so?”

Leulua’iali’i added that Rev. Iutisone had told the server that he has the authority to accept the documents on behalf of the second respondents.

But Chief Justice Patu did not accept this either.

“But in actual fact, he (Rev. Iutisone) does not have the authority, he is not one of the respondents,” His Honour said.

“The important point is natural justice. If you are to serve a person, then you have to serve your proceedings on that person not on someone else unless that someone else has the authority to accept service.”

“But you say that Rev. Iutisone accepts it, where is proof that he has the authority to accept the service on the second respondents?”

Chief Justice Patu pointed out that if the respondents came into Court “and question any decision made by the Court that Rev. Iutisone has no authority to accept service on their behalf, I would have to nullify whatever that decision is because natural justice has not been served by effective service on the party.”

Another area that His Honour Patu questioned the lawyers about is whether the proper second respondent should be the Directors Committee, instead of its individual members.

“Because the decision appears to be it was not made by second respondents as individuals but as members of the Directors Committee,” said Chief Justice Patu.

Due to uncertainty on fundamental issues, the Chief Justice adjourned the matter.

But before he did this, Leulua’iali’i made a final request.

“Your Honour I respectfully request if the matter can be dealt with before May when the General Assembly (of C.C.C.S.) gathers in May,” said Leulua’iali’i.

“The lives of hundreds of children are put on hold and…”

Chief Justice reminded Leulua’iali’i that while the case was important, other matters scheduled are equally important.

He ordered to make amendment to the first name respondent if necessary once Ms. Leavai confirms the exact name for the respondent to be sued.

The matter has been adjourned until 17 April 2015 for a hearing.