Mapu Jamaias loses lease on his Maliu Mai branch in Samoa

Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — The Maliu Mai branch at Fugalei Samoa has been ordered by the Samoa Supreme Court to vacate the property.

The decision was handed down last week by Supreme Court Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren who ordered the owners of Maliu Mai at Fugalei — American Samoa businessman, Mapu Jamaias and his wife Iliganoa Sooialo — to vacate the property as “they have no legal basis to be on the land and they are ordered to vacate the property forthwith and remove their building.”

This is in relation to a lawsuit filed by Angela Frost, Wendell Frederick Frost and Evelyn Frost, who are the registered owners of the land at Fugalei on which Maliu Mai Bar and Restaurant has been situated since October 16, 2002.

Frost, Mapu and Iliganoa signed a lease agreement dated September 23, 2004. That lease was terminated by the Frosts on June 12, 2020 after default by the defendants in their lease payments of $200 USD a month.

The Frosts sought to remove the defendants from the land, but the defendants filed a counterclaim that they should be paid the cost of the building $943,000 tala which they built on the land and reclamation to the land $115,000 tala and the defendant’s claim in total is $1.05 million tala.

According to the decision of the court, the plaintiffs sought an eviction order against the defendants and any of their family members, agents, servants or anyone under their authority to vacate the land. 

“This is on the basis that the lease was terminated by way of notice on 12 June 2020 for non-payment of rent. The defendants were given one month to vacate the land. The defendants continue to occupy the land two years later.

“The defendants concede that they defaulted or rather their adopted daughter defaulted on the payment of rent and that they received notice of termination.”

Furthermore, the defendants plead unjust enrichment and more particularly, as per their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim that the developments made by the defendants on the property had not only caused improvements thereon, they also constitute reclamation work that has improved the value and condition of the property from being swampy land and too hard land at Fugalei.

The lease agreement does not stipulate any waiver on a right to compensation on the part of the defendant's improvements on the property and building placed thereon by the Defendants.

The plaintiffs are claiming possession of the property, the defendants are also now claiming compensation for the reclamation work they have done on it with buildings placed thereon that have improved the condition of the property and made it attractive for business investments from 2004 to date.

Justice Tuala-Warren determined that the issues in this case are; does the building fall under ‘improvements’ covered under clause 8 of the lease agreement; does the reclamation of the land fall under ‘improvements’ in clause 8 of the lease agreement; and can unjust enrichment be used to compensate the building and reclamation if not covered under the lease agreement.

Mapu and Iliganoa breached the terms of the lease by defaulting on their lease payments, which is not disputed, says the court decision. 

“They cannot then rely on unjust enrichment to counter what the Plaintiffs were legally permitted under the lease agreement to do, and that is to terminate the agreement, given their non-observation of the lease agreement. For the last 2 years, the defendants have lived on the property without making any payments.

“For the sake of completeness, I find on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiffs have been enriched by the receipt of a benefit, that the enrichment has been at the defendant’s expense but it would not be unjust to allow the Plaintiffs to retain the benefit.

“I am referring specifically to the duplex built pre-lease. The defendants had built the duplex before they signed the lease. I can only infer that they knew it was not covered by the lease as the only improvements covered by the lease are those done during the term of the lease.

“The defendants are fortunate that the Plaintiffs are allowing them to remove the whole building, including the duplex for which they had not provided under the lease agreement. The Plaintiffs end up with no benefit when the defendants remove their building.

“The reclamation will remain as it is not an improvement captured under the lease, nor is it unjust for the Plaintiffs to retain that benefit for the same reason as it is not unjust for them to retain the benefit of the duplex (which the Plaintiffs choose not to keep).

“The defendants had ample opportunity to include the reclamation in the lease agreement which they signed with the person who allegedly said to them that the reclamation would be factored into the lease. However, they did not specifically include the reclamation they did pre-lease in the lease agreement, which allows me to infer that they were content with the lease agreement.

“There is a clause in the lease agreement that if the lessees exercise their right of renewal the rent will increase to USD$275.00 per month which is an increase on the initial amount of USD$200.00 per month for the first 20 years.

“This seems to be in line with what Mr Frost said to the defendants, that the cost of the reclamation would be taken out of the lease.

“Therefore, it is safe for me to infer that the reclamation has been factored into the lease payments as a reduced monthly rent was to be in force for the first 20 years, and in fact, they had the reduced lease payment of USD$200.00 per month from 2004 to termination of the lease in 2020.

“A further and most significant point which should be made is that the Defendants are still in occupation of the land despite the lease agreement being terminated in 2020. It is not disputed that the lease has been terminated by the Plaintiffs.

“The defendants, and their daughter or any other party claiming under them, have no legal basis to be on the land and they are ordered to vacate the property forthwith and remove their building.”