MALAITA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v
MARILYN
GANIFIRVID GANIFIRI, COMMISSIONER OF LAND AND REGISTRAR OF TITLES
High Court of Solomon Islbr>
Before: .F. O. Kabui, J
Civil Case No. 217 of 2000
class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Hearing: 9th April
2001
Judgment: 9th April 2001
class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
A. Radclyffe for the Plaintiff
J. Keniapisia for the 2nd
and 3rd Defendants
J. Hauirae for the 1st
Defendant
RULING
(Kabui,
>): By Summons filed on 13th March, 2001, 001, the Plaintiff
seeks the following orders-
1. &nbbsp;& &nsp; &nsp; lpan="EN-GB"N-GB" style="font-size: 11.0pt">That
the Second Defendant answer the Plaintiff�s interrogatorithin s
d in lt
the second Defendant�dant�s defs defence be struck out.
>
<
2. & That tirdTh
DefenDefendant make full discovery within 7 days of documents relating to the
attempted registration
of a grant inent frcel 71-00 in
or abpril 1996 in f in favouravour of t of the Plhe Plaintiaintiff.
3. & p;   &nbp; Surther
othr other ordr orders as the Court thinks fit.
At the
ng of this Summons this morning, the Plaintiff decided not not to proceed
with the application for order 1 above
on the ground that it had been fully
satisfied by the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff however maintained
its position as regards the need for the Court to make the order asked for
in 2 above. Order 2 speaks for itself. It requires discovery within 7 days
of documents relating to the attempted registration
of a grant instrument
for Parcel No. 171-001-319 in or about April, 1996 in favour of the
Plaintiff. In support of the
application, Counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr.
Radclyffe, produced documents 13 and 23 in part 1 of schedule 1 in an
affidavit
filed on 12th January, 2000 by the Solicitor for the 2nd
and 3rd Defendants. Documents 13 is a letter written by one
George A. Hoatamauri on behalf of the Commissioner of Lands to the
Plaintiff�s Provincial Secretary, D.R. Houkari. In that letter, it says, Lot
450 is in fact Parcel No. 171-001-319. Document
23 is a Grant Instrument for
Parcel No. 171-001-319 in favour of the Plaintiff. Whereas according to the
affidavit filed
by Irene Vaukei, the Registrar-General, on 6th
April, 2001, Parcel No. 171-001-319 was granted to Valbros Limited on 3rd
November, 1995. In support of the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants, their Counsel, Mr. Keniapisia, argued that there was no dispute
that Lot 450 was in fact Parcel No. 171-001-343
whilst Lot 420 was Parcel
No. 171-001-319, none of which had anything to do with the Plaintiff�s
application. On this
basis, he argued that documents relating to these
Parcel Numbers would have never been in the possession of the 3rd
Defendant for the purpose of the Plaintiff�s Summons or even if they were,
they were not relevant documents for the Plaintiff�s
purposes.
In my view, there must have
been otocuments relating to the non-registration of Parcel No.
.
171-001-319 in favour
of the Plaintiff. For example, why did the Grant
Instrument lodged for registration on 3rd April, 1996 not
registered? The reasons may well have been contained in letters, if any,
that intervened after the Grant
Instrument had been executed and ready for
registration. These would be relevant evidence on the point interested in by
the Plaintiff. In the result I reject the 2nd and 3rd
Defendant�s argument and I would grant the Plaintiffs application. I make
the order sought accordingly.
F. O. Kabui
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2001/18.html
