is and has been very ill, and consequently, has been unable to broker a dótente between the two camps. Since this action began, Poiali'i has been seemingly aligned with Seepa’s side of the family. Being so situated, Poiali'i apparently believed the Tuis’ had violated the January 21 agreement. Consequently, he has, and continues, to refuse to issue the Tuis a long-term lease for the property, believing that the Tuis’ alleged violation gave him good cause to do so. Since 1983, we have consistently held that we will not disturb a sa'o’s decision regarding communal land unless that decision is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of the sa'o’s discretion. See e.g. Fairholt v. Aulava, 1 A.S.R.2d 73 (Trial Div. 1983); see also Toleafoa v. Tiapula, 7 A.S.R.2d 117 (Land & Titles Div. 1988) (<HOLDING>). The Tuis contend that Poiali'i has
holding that a trial courts order in a probationrevocation proceeding will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding that when the court is asked to intervene in a family dispute it will not substitute its judgment for the saos absent a clear abuse of discretion holding that a sentencing determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the district court holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion