Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Ratu v Dakolae Resources Development Company Ltd [1998] SBHC 121; HCSI-CC 288 of 1997 (24 September 1998)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 288 of 1997

ROBERT RATU

-v-

DAKOLAE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,
LETI PIKO (as representing the line that granted timbers rights to the first Defendant,
ALLARDYCE LUMBER CO. LTD, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SECRETARY TO
MAROVO AREA COUNCIL)

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.)
Civil Case No. 288 of 1997

Hearing: 18 September 1998
Judgment: 24 September 1998

D. Hou for Plaintiff
J. Wasiraro for First and Second Defendants
T. Kama for Third Defendant
No Appearance for 4th & 5th Defendants.

MURIA CJ: This is an application for leave to issue certiorari proceedings against the decision of the fifth defendant made on 18 October 1995 on the ground of fraud.

The brief background is that the Marovo Area Council who is the fifth defendant in this case, heard an application by first defendant for timber rights (“the timber rights hearing”) on 18 October 1995 over Dakolae Land. The first defendant was granted timber rights over the said land. The second defendant is a representative of the line who owns Dakolae Land. The third defendant is a company contracted under a Management Agreement to provide machinery and management services for the purposes of logging by the first defendant.

In the course of the Council hearing, objections were invited from people. The Minutes of the Meeting confirmed that the plaintiff objected to the application. The objection was mainly on the boundary shown on the map of Dakolae Land which the plaintiff claimed to have extended onto other land belonging to other people. Reference was made to the High Court decision, Native land Appeal, No. 11 of 1973(HC) which affirmed the Marovo Native Court decision given on 16 November 1971. That case was between Letipiko Balesi -v- Aaron Lukumu; representing their respective lines. The alleged fraud raised by the plaintiff here is in relation to the use by the second defendant of the High Court decision to influence the fifth defendant’s decision which was made in favour of granting timber rights to the first defendant.

In objecting to the application for leave to issue certiorari proceedings, the defendants argued that the plaintiff is clearly out of time to bring the application. It was argued that the plaintiff was present at the Area Council hearing and objected to the granting of timber rights to the first defendant over his tribe’s land. Both Counsel for the first, second and third defendants urged the Court to refuse leave to extent time to bring certiorari proceedings in this case.

I do not think I need to consider the reasons for objecting the application in details, as I am satisfied that in a case where fraud is alleged to have influenced a decision, the Court must be free to extend the exercise of its discretionary power so as to allow an applicant to satisfy the Court by evidence that the decision complained of was in fact tainted by fraud. This is so because fraud unravels everything; it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever: R -v- Customary Land Appeal Court (W) ex parte SIMI PITAKAKA [1985/1986] SILR 69. If fraud is proved in this case, it would undoubtedly affect the decision of fifth defendant.

The affidavit evidence of the plaintiff in this case deposed that he was only aware of the alleged fraud in February this year. In fact, the application for leave pursuant 0.61 r.2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules to issue certiorari proceedings was filed on 16 April 1998. It was adjourned on 27 May 1998 on application by third defendant. It was then re-issued on 16 July 1998 and fixed for 18 September 1998. Having therefore, discovered the alleged fraud in February 1998, it appears the plaintiff had taken steps to bring this matter to the Court. No delay can be heavily placed against the plaintiff as such.

Even if, there is delay here in view of the fifth defendant’s decision made on 18 October 1995, the allegation of fraud now being raised which, if proved, would vitiate that decision, the Court should exercise its power and grant leave to issue proceedings for certiorari in this case. This is what the Court will do here.

Leave to issue application for certiorari is granted to the plaintiff.

(GJB Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE