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

Iordanis v Bemobile (SI) Ltd [2017] SBHC 82; HCSI-CC 219 of 2016 (11 October 2017)

LOUIS IORDANIS -V- BEMOBILE (SI) LIMITED
(Owner of Parcel Number (Defendant)
191-032-142, Lot 3184,
Bahai, East Honiara) (Claimant)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(BROWN J)

Civil Case No. 219 of 2016

Date of Hearing: 3 August 2017
Date of Ruling: 11 October 2017

M. Tagini for Claimant
W.Togamai for Defendant

Brown J:

Claim for declaration that billboard amounts to trespass under section 243 of the land and titles act and associated claim for damages

The claim was filed on 18 May 2016 and seeks damages in the sum of $333,500 as assessed by Homeland Valuation Services. The billboard had been erected on a parcel of land at a Bahai, Prince Philip Highway, Honiara.

By statement of case the claimant stated-

“ 1. A declaration that the construction of the billboard or advertising board on parcel number 191 – 032 – 142, lot 3184 amounts to trespass under section 243 of the Land and Titles Act. An order for damages in the amount of $333, 5003. At all material times the claimant is the registered owner of the fixed term estate in parcel number 191. 032. 142, lot 3184 at Bahai, East Honiara

2. At all material times the defendant is a telecommunication company incorporated under the Companies Act and operates in the Solomon islands. Three

3. On 1 July 2010, the defendant had constructed and erected a billboard or advertising board on parcel number 191. 032. 142, lot 3184 at Bahai, along the Prince Philip Highway and during this time the fixed term estate was registered under the name of its former owner.

4. On 24 August 2011, the title of ownership to the fixed term estate at Bahai was rectified and registered under the claimant’s name.

5. On 30 June 2013 the billboard was then later removed by the defendant subject to complaints made by the claimant as the new owner of the area.

6. On 20 January 2015, claimant’s lawyer issued a letter to the defendant giving notice of 14 days to pay the claimant rental due to him for the billboard or advertisement board which was legally constructed on his parcel.

7. On 3 February 2015, the defendant through its legal representative, offered a settlement of $ 20, 000 per annum to the claimant for a period of two years to which the claimant refused and rejected.

8. The construction and usage of the billboard or advertisement board on parcel number had benefited the defendant greatly through its advertisement and promotion of its services much to the detriment of the claimant.

By paragraph 8 the claimant has claimed detriment through its advertisement and promotion of services by B-mobile. No evidence has been advanced to support the claim for detriment which presumably has been caused to the claimant by the advertisement and promotion of services contrary to the interest of the claimant. There is no evidence to support the extent to which the promotion of services caused detriment to the claimant.

By paragraph 9 (not set out) the claimant relies on the valuation report, assessing damage caused by the defendant at $333, 500. That report, annex L1 – 1 to the sworn statement of the claimant was compiled by Balasido Boeau and set out three valuation methods used to arrive at the amount. 1] comparative sales comparison ; 2] contract as method (cost of site plus cost of building obsolescence minus depreciation equal value of property ) used in valuation of hospitals schools police stations et cetera when no comparative sales exist. 3] investment method (income or residual earnings approach)

This was an advertising billboard erected at the front of a block of land facing the road. There is a house, it appears from a photograph of the land. The valuer’s methods are wholly inappropriate and calculated to deceive this court by apparent professionalism but the valuation report is totally worthless in establishing a fair price to be put on a sign erected on a residential block. The valuer’s evidence is clearly partisan and of no use to this court by way of independent valuation.

The offer to settle as shown by the exchange of letters apparently relies on payments given the previous owner of the land by way of lease of a small portion of the land for the erection of the bill-board. There is no evidence in favour of the claimant to support the claim for $333,500^[1]

By paragraph 1 of the case, the claimant pleads he was the registered owner of the parcel of land at “all material times”. In his sworn statement he admits the billboard had been erected on the land when he took title in August 2011. The billboard was removed in June 2013 after the claimant made “few complaints”.

In January 2015 a claim was made by his solicitor for rental due. Such claim admits knowledge of the billboard and presumes the right to monies under some type of rental agreement. No such agreement is pleaded or in evidence.

At the time the claimant took over the land the billboard had been in situ since its erection on 1 July 2010. He clearly took possession of the property aware of the fact of the billboard. It was not until June 2013 that the billboard was removed. The claimant took possession of the property “as is”.

By paragraph 6 of the statement of case there has been no evidence given that the billboard was illegally constructed for B- mobile had pleaded approval of the Honiara City Council to its use in the residential area and there is no evidence that it was originally erected illegally. The offer by B- mobile to recompense the claimant followed demand in 2015 was refused and rejected.

In the absence of evidence to prove the value of loss of the amenity of the front portion of the block of land from the time the claimant sought to have the billboard removed to that date 30 June 2013 when it was removed, I am not willing by conjecture to reach any figure for that supposed loss of the amenity. I am also unwilling to in my discretion make a declaration that the billboard’s presence on the land amounted to trespass for it remained legally when the claimant presumably took possession in August 2011 and no court has been shown to have declared the billboard was on the land illegally to the time of its removal.

The claim for these reasons fails.

There shall be judgement for the defendant. The claimant shall play the defendants costs on the third schedule basis within 28 days of assessment or failing that, taxation.

In spite of directions allowing submissions by both parties in this matter this judgement is handed down after the expiration of the time allowed for any such submissions and has been determined on the facts disclosed in the court book.

_____________________

Brown J

^[1] Bule v Maneniaru civil appeal 1 of 2009 (23 July 2009)