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

Matai v Kuper [2013] SBHC 52; HCSI-CC 159 of 2010 (15 May 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua, J)

Civil Case No. 159 of 2010

BETWEEN:

ROSE MATAI AND MARTIN MATAI
- Claimant

AND :

CHRIS KUPER AND SALLY KUPER
- Defendant

Hearing : 11 March 2013
Judgment : 15 May 2013

P Tegavota for the Claimants
D Tigulu for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

[1] The Claimants and the defendants live in Honiara. The Defendants obtained the sum of two hundred and thirty thousand dollars from the Defendants. The Defendants used two hundred thousand dollars of that amount to purchase a residential house on fixed term estate in parcel number 191-017-48 (the land) at Mbokona in Honiara. The Claimants contend that the Defendants are obliged to transfer the title to that land to them pursuant to a verbal agreement made between them and the Defendants. The Defendants deny the existence of any such agreement between them and the Claimants.

[2] The Claimants contend that the terms of that agreement are these:

(a) The Claimants agreed to assist the Defendants by paying the sum of two hundred

thousand dollars direct to the then Development Bank of Solomon Islands.

(b) The Defendants agreed that after they have purchased the land, they would

transfer their title to the Claimants upon the payment of thirty thousand dollars;

(c) As the Defendants do not have accommodation to live in at the relevant time, the Claimants agreed that the Defendants first occupy the land, and the Defendants to give vacant possession of the land, to the Claimants, when the Defendants find alternative accommodation.

[3] One of the Defendants, Sally Kuper, was a former employee of the Development Bank of Solomon Islands. In 2006 she was made redundant by the bank and was given notice to vacate a DBSI house. It would seem that house would be the same house on the land in this case. The bank then gave her the first option to purchase the land. The price for the land was $200,000.00. The Claimants assisted the Defendants by providing financial assistance in the sum of $200,000.00. The money was directly paid to the Bank by cheque. On the 9 October 2007, the Defendants signed a transfer with the bank. The title to the land was then registered in the names of the Defendants. In June 2007, the Claimants paid the sum of $10,000.00 to the Defendants. On the 26 of January 2008, the Claimants again paid to the Defendants the sum of $20,000.00. The Claimants say that the total sum of $30,000.00 was a commission for the Defendants to transfer the title to the land back to them pursuant to the oral agreement made by the Defendants with the Claimants. But the Defendants say that the sum of $30,000.00 was paid to them by the Claimants as Christmas gift and for funding of small projects by their family. The Defendants gave no details on these projects.

[4 As the Defendants failed to abide by the oral agreement, the Claimants filed a further amended claim against the Defendants on 12 August 2010, seeking declaratory orders for specific performance of the oral agreement; rectification of the Defendants' title to the land on the grounds of fraud or mistake; unjust enrichment; and in the alternative, to repay the sum of $230,000.00 to the Claimants with interest and costs.

[5] The Defendants opposed the Claimants' claim, and filed defence to the further amended claim. They submit that the claim should be dismissed with costs.

[6] The agreed facts and issues were filed on 2 July 2012, which comprise both question of facts and law. The question of facts are: (a) whether the Claimants had assisted the Defendants with the sum of $200,000.00 to purchase the land; whether prior to the payment of the $200,000.00 the parties have agreed to enter into the verbal agreement in the following terms; (i) the Claimants would assist the Defendants purchase the land from the Development Bank of Solomon Islands; (ii) after the title is transferred to the Defendants, the Defendants would in turn transfer their title to the Claimants; and (iii) in consideration of the transfer of the title to them, the Claimants would pay the Defendants a commission of $30,000.00.

[7] The questions of law are: (a) whether the oral agreement was binding on the Defendants; and (b) whether the oral agreement constitutes a valid agreement to transfer the land under the act.

[8] The court will now consider the facts and the issues raised for determination. There is evidence that the Claimants agreed to assist the Defendants in the sum of $200,000.00 to purchase the land. This is agreed by both parties in their agreed facts and issues filed in court on 2 July 2012 ("the agreed facts and issues"). The total purchase price was $200,000.00. The money provided by the Claimant was paid directly to the bank by cheque on 9 October 2007. The Defendants signed the transfer with the bank, and, the title to the land was registered in the names of the Defendants.

[9] There is evidence of the verbal agreement between the parties. It is in the following terms: The Claimants would assist the Defendants to purchase the land from the bank; (ii) that after the land is registered in the names of the Defendants, they will then transfer their title to the Claimants; and in return, the Defendants would be paid $30,000.00 as commission.

[10] This court accepts that the parties entered into the verbal agreement before the Defendants received financial assistance from the Claimants. The evidence of the Claimants show that the Defendants made two visits to the home of the Claimants. It was during the second visit that the Defendants discussed funding assistance with the Claimants. The Second Defendant first denied funding assistance from the Claimants. But it is evident from the agreed facts filed in court that the Defendants agreed that there was discussion about funding with the Claimants in the sum of two hundred thousand dollars. The First Defendant then went on to explain that the ten thousand dollars given to the First Defendant was for a Christmas gift, while the twenty thousand dollars was for small projects for the Defendants' family. The Claimants do not agree with the evidence of First Defendant in relation to purported use of the thirty thousand dollars as described by the First Defendant.

This court is of the view that the ten thousand dollars was quite huge for a Christmas gift. And the sum of twenty thousand is unlikely to be given by the Claimants for small projects. There is no detailed evidence of such projects by the Defendants.

[11] There is evidence of discussions between the Claimants and the Defendants. These were held before the verbal agreement was made. The court is of the view the agreement is valid. The Defendants have agreed to transfer their title to the Claimant. The manner of doing that is as provided under Act and not by the verbal agreement itself. But instead of the Defendants doing that, they committed fraud against the Claimants by not transferring their title to the Claimants in accordance with the terms of the verbal agreement.

[12] In conclusion, there is evidence that the Claimants paid the price of the land for the Defendants; that the Defendants promised to surrender their title to the Claimants through the process provided by the Act, there is unjust enrichment by the Defendants. The Claimants have proved their case against the Defendants.

ORDER: 1. That there be specific performance of the verbal agreement in favour of the Claimants.

2. Rectification of the title to the land in the names of the Claimants.

3. In the alternative, the Defendants are to fully repay the Claimants' money in the sum of $230,000.00 within three months of this Ruling.

4. The Defendants are to pay the Claimants' costs of this proceeding.

THE COURT