Supreme Court dismisses Central Pentecost fuel station dispute

April 1, 2026 10:06 pm | Posted in Business News | Share now TwitterFacebook

By Terence Malapa.

The Supreme Court of Vanuatu has struck out a Judicial Review (JR) claim filed by Family Molrang over the closure of a fuel station in Central Pentecost, ruling that the case was legally flawed and brought by the wrong party.

In Molrang v Suru Area Council (Central Pentecost) [2026] VUSC 58, Chief Justice (CJ) Vincent Lunabek confirmed that the claim was “misconceived” and ordered it to be dismissed with costs following a conference hearing held on 23 February 2026.

The dispute arose after the Suru Area Council decided in November 2025 to shut down a fuel station at Bwatnapni, which was operated by Ocean Logistics Limited on land owned by Family Molrang. The council’s decision was enforced by police officers in December 2025, who removed the station’s keys and halted its operations.

Family Molrang challenged both the council’s decision and the actions of the police, arguing they were unlawful and seeking compensation for financial losses during the closure. The Supreme Court initially granted interim orders allowing the station to reopen while the matter was pending.

However, in their defence, the Suru Area Council and the Police Service Commission argued that the closure was justified. They said the council acted after receiving complaints from local ward leaders and raised concerns that the fuel station, operated by a foreign investor, had not undergone proper consultation with local authorities as required under the Foreign Investment Act. They also argued that the business posed a threat to existing locally owned fuel stations on Pentecost.

In his ruling, CJ Lunabek acknowledged that the council, as a statutory body, exercised public powers and that its decision could be subject to judicial review. However, he found that the claim failed on key legal requirements.

The Court held that Family Molrang did not have standing to bring the case because they did not own or operate the fuel station. Instead, the business was run by Ocean Logistics Limited, which was not a party to the proceedings but was the entity directly affected by the council’s decision.

The judge further noted that important issues raised in the defence—such as whether the foreign investor had complied with registration and licensing requirements—could only be properly addressed by the company itself.

“The claimant is only indirectly affected,” the Court found, emphasising that the dispute centred on the operation of the fuel business rather than land ownership or rental income.

It also ruled that the claim for compensation was inappropriate in a JR proceeding, as such remedies fall under private law rather than public law.

Although the Court found there was no delay in filing the claim and accepted that no alternative remedy was readily available, it concluded that the absence of legal standing and an arguable case was fatal.

As a result, the JR was struck out, with costs awarded to the Suru Area Council and the Police Service Commission.