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

Pitu v Mas Solo Investment Ltd [2016] SBHC 213; HCSI-CC 282 of 2016 (28 November 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction

BETWEEN:

GEORGE NESSA PITU, OBADIAH GADI AND HOLDER FOTAMANA

Claimant

(Representing themselves and their Mereluhu tribe of Hograno District, Santa Isabel)

AND:

MAS SOLO INVESTMENT LIMITED
1^st Defendant

ELLIOT HAVILEGU
2^nd Defendant
(Representing himself and the Posamogho Moni Clan of Malosi, Isabel Province)

ATTORNEY GENERAL

3^rd Defendant

(Representing the Commissioner of Forest)

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 28 November 2016

Mr. M. Pitakaka for claimant
Mr. R. Kingmele for 1^st defendant
Mr. P. Tegavota for 2^nd defendant
Mrs. R. Soma for 3^rd defendant

Application to discharge interlocutory injunctive orders and to strike out proceedings.

Brown J:

Extempore
The 2^nd named defendants in these proceedings, following a Council of Chiefs meeting, held at Momotu village on 19 September, appealed to the Isabel Local Court.

The 2^nd defendant were aggrieved and by unaccepted settlement the Local Court was given jurisdiction to determine the question relevant in these proceedings, the ownership of Block B Fofora land since by their Claim they sought to dispute the right of the 1^st and 2^nd defendants to log Block B.

Earlier in these proceedings I had given an interim injunction in favour of the claimants but the finding of the Local Court that these parties had no claim in custom to Fofora land has put paid to the basis for the Court’s continued order.

Since the 2^nd defendants rights to the land has been confirmed by the Local Court, [which quashed the earlier Chiefs decision but upheld an earlier order of the CLAC given on the 8 August 2013], this court should be wary of allowing these proceedings to go to trial when the basis has been undermined by the finding of the Local Court.

Clearly the chance of a successful claim has diminished, for in the absence of ownership, the only avenues available to contest the rights of those representatives of all the landowners affected by the concession, is to a claim for a share of royalties were these claimants to be found entitled to usufructory rights perhaps to the block “B”. For while they may have rights in personam against the 2^nd defendant [if they actually occupy perhaps the land], they have been found to have no right in rem [or rights of ownership]. This Court has no jurisdiction to hear custom arguments about a share of royalties.

Consequently pursuant to R. 1.4 [which deals with a resolution of the case having regard to the likelihood of success and the costs involved were this matter to proceed to trial], I dismiss the claim.

The earlier injunction is discharged.

Any moneys subject to the order in the solicitors trust account shall be paid to the 2^nd defendant.

With the discharge of the injunctive orders, no further liability attaches to parties or solicitors in terms of those orders except the order for payment just made.
I waived the undertaking as to damages required by the Rules. That does not preclude the 1^st and 2^nd defendants from instituting proceedings for loss consequent upon the interlocutory injunctive orders.

Costs these proceedings shall be paid by the claimants.

__________________
BROWN J