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

Riumana v Manegere [2023] SBHC 101; HCSI-CC 99 of 2023 (28 September 2023)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 99 of 2023

BETWEEN

SELWYN RIUMANA
(Representing himself and members of Pau Tribe)
Claimant

AND:

APPOLLOS MANEGERE
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 11 August 2023
Date of Decision: 28 September 2023

Mr Jack To’ofilu for the Claimant
Mr Christopher Hapa

RULING

Bird PJ:

1. The Claimant filed a Category A Claim on 14 March 2023 for a number of declaratory orders namely:
   1. A declaration order that pursuant to the Family declaration of Olivia Lessy dated 13 July 2020 and Declaration and Resolution by Pau tribe members dated 1 November 2020, the Defendant no longer has the right to act as a spokesperson for Pau tribe;
   2. A declaration order that pursuant to the Family declaration of Olivia Lessy dated 13 July 2020 and Declaration and Resolution by Pau tribe members dated 1 November 2020, the Pau tribe shall remain named as Pau tribe and shall not be named as Gasebou tribe;
   3. A declaration order that by virtue of the chiefs decision dated 29 August 1997, High Court Civil Case No. 279 of 2010, SICOA- COC No 32 of 2013, family declaration of descendants of Olivia Lessy dated 13 July 2020 and Declaration and Resolution by Pau tribe members dated 1 November 2020, the Claimant was recognised by members of Pau tribe, and is a member of Pau tribe and leader of Pau tribe;
   4. Costs;
   5. Such further or other relief as the court deems fit
2. As per the Category A Claim and the reliefs sought by the Claimant, the Defendant filed a conditional response on 12 April 2023. Subsequently, an application to dismiss the Claim was filed on 5 June 2023. That application was listed for hearing on 11 August 2023.
3. The Defendant’s application is premised on rule 9.75 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. The rule provides:
   • r.9.75If in any proceedings it appears to the court that in relation to the proceedings generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings:
   1. the proceedings are frivolous and vexatious; or
   2. no reasonable cause of action is disclosed; or
   100. the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court;

the court may, on the application of a party or on its own initiative, order that the proceedings be dismissed generally or in relation to that claim.

4. For his application, Mr Hapa of counsel for the Defendant reads his application and the sworn statements of Appollos Manegere filed on 5 June and 9 August 2023 respectively.

The basis of the Defendant’s application are that this court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the issue at hand. Secondly that the evidence produced by the Claimant and his witnesses are mere assertions without proof. Thirdly, that irrelevant custom considerations are taken into account and there is a pending Local Court case between the Claimant and the Defendant in this case.

5. On the issue of the court’s jurisdiction to deal with the Claim, Mr Hapa of counsel has referred this court to the decisions of the Court of Appeal on the functions of this court to assist the lower courts in the exercise of their discretion to deal with disputes in custom. See the case of Rini v Silas Unreported, Civil Appeal Case No. 22 of 2015. It is submitted that this court cannot entertain the Claimant’s Claim because, it cannot assist the lower courts in their determination. The reliefs sought if granted amounts to final orders.
6. It is further submitted by counsel that the evidence of the Claimant and his witnesses are mere assertions which is not supported by any court documents. It is further submitted that this court by order dated 16 July 2020 referred the dispute to a differently constituted Isabel Local Court. So unless and until the Local Court makes a decision, the said decision of the Chiefs dated 9 – 11 April 2018 is in favour of the Defendant in this case. On the totality of the evidence before this court, and at this juncture, this court lacks jurisdiction to deal with and or entertain the Claim of the Claimant. The issues raised are issues of custom and this court lacks the jurisdiction to deal with the Claim. The Claim is frivolous and vexatious, it does not disclose any reasonable cause of action, is an abuse of the process of the court and should be dismissed with cost.
7. In response to the submission on behalf of the Defendant, Mr To’ofilu of counsel for the Claimant reads the Claim filed on 14 March 2023, the sworn statement of Selwyn Riumana filed on 9 June 2023, sown statement of Wilfred Revision filed on 14 June 2023, the sworn statements of Oliver kusap and Rebecca Fruni both filed on 2 August 2023, the sworn statements of Alfred Rurhagita and Cristina Loloi both filed on 8 August 2023 and the sworn statement of Selwyn Riumana filed on 9 August 2023.
8. It is the case for the Claimant that the Defendant is not part of the Pau tribe and is not entitled to represent the Pau tribe pursuant to Family Declaration of Olivia Lessy dated 13 July 2020 and Declaration and Resolution by Pau tribe members dated 1 November 2020. The Pau tribal members have authorised the Claimant to be their spokesperson and they do not recognise the Defendant as a spokesperson.
9. It is further submitted by Mr To’ofilu of counsel that the referral of this court in CC 30 of 2020 would no longer suffice because the Claimant had withdrawn his appeal to the Isabel Local Court on 20 June 2023. It is also submitted that the Defendant lacks standing to represent the Pau tribe because of the Family declaration of Olivia Lessy dated 13 July 2020 and Declaration and Resolution by Pau tribe members dated 1 November 2020.

Discussion

10. The main crux of the argument of the Claimant in this proceeding is through the Family declaration of Olivia Lessy dated 13 July 2020 and Declaration and Resolution by Pau tribe members dated 1 November 2020 that the Defendant had ceased to be a member of the Pau tribe or that he is not to act as the spokesperson for that tribe.
11. The two declarations relied upon by the Claimant, in my considered view are mere declarations that do not have the force of law to back them up. So unless and until a chiefs forum or the Local Court having jurisdiction in that area makes a determination and endorsed what is stated in the said declarations, they are not worth the piece of paper that they are written on. They do not have any legal effect that this court can take into account.
12. It is further my view that the issue of membership of a certain tribe and or of a spokesperson for a certain tribe is an issue of custom that this court cannot and should not interfere with. At this juncture, this court lacks the jurisdiction to deal with the issues in the Claimant’s Claim and or to grant the orders in the terms of the reliefs sought by the Claimant. I therefore dismiss the Claim of the Claimant filed on 14 March 2023 with cost. I order accordingly.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge