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

Ansa v Attorney General [2023] SBHC 117; HCSI-CC 378 of 2015 (3 November 2023)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 378 of 2015

BETWEEN

BILLY ANSA
Appellant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
First Defendant

AND:

NELSON NEE, DANIEL TOBI, PHILIP RAMO, JESSY URAU, AND BARNABAS RANODUA
Second Defendant

Date of Judgment: 3 November 2023

Kwana L for the Appellant
Kii E for first Defendant
Kwaiga L for Nelson Nee, Daniel Tobi, Philip Ramo and Jessy Urau second Defendant
Rano W for Barnabas Ranodua fifth named Defendant and Second Defendant

RULING

Maina PJ:

1. The Appellant has appealed against the decision of the Principal Magistrate’s ruling on 5^th May 2015 on the land acquisition of Fiu River Customary Land or Fiu Catchment area.
2. The appellant claim that:
   • (a) the learned Magistrate erred in fact and law when he ruled that the Second Defendant’s appeal against the First Respondent’s determination dated 31 February 2014 of the land acquisition public hearing conducted on 14 February 2014 amounts to an abuse of process.
   • (b) the learned Magistrate erred in law when he ruled in disallowing the Second Appellant’s appeal despite having an overwhelming genuine claim or interest over the land subjected matter of the said acquisition appeal to the Magistrate Court.
   • (c) The learned Magistrate erred in law when he ruled that although the First Respondent failed to give sufficient notice as to the venue of the public hearing and failed to cause boundaries of the land to demarcated on the ground a map or plan in such a manner as to bring them to the notice of the persons affected concluded that alleged failure would not entitle the second defendant to continue as an appellant in the said Land Acquisition Appeal Case no 3 of 2015.

Brief Background

3. A land acquisition public hearing of Fiu River Customary Land or Fiu Catchment area was conducted on 14 February 2014 and the Acquisition Officer’s determination was made dated 31 February 2014.
4. From the land acquisition hearing the acquisition officer Mr Laury Palmer determined that there was no claimant against the agreement for lease he had made with Nelson Ne,e, Daniel Tobi, Philip Ramo & Jessy Urau Barnabas Ranodua.
5. Therefore, the person he made agreement with them has the right to lease the subject land and receive the rents.
6. Mr. Billy Ansa appealed the decision of the Acquisition Officer to the Magistrate Court but in his ruling on 5^th May 2015, the Principal Magistrate dismissed the appeal on the ground of abuse of process.

The Issue

7. Whether the appeal by the Appellant against the determination of the acquisition officer was an abuse of process.

Respondent’s Submissions

8. All the counsels for the respondents submitted that the Appellant Billy Ansa has no right to appeal the decision of the acquisition officer. Appellant Billy Ansa did not make any claim at the hearing nor was he present at the hearing.
9. Appellant counsel in the submission stated the Appellant filed the appeal for a proper purpose, which is within the scope of the process. As such, the magistrate has the jurisdiction on issues relate to the land acquisition as provided under section 66 of the Lands and Titles Act.
10. The Appellant counsel argued and refer to section 66 of the Act on the phrase “any person” and that infer the right of claim to any person who have interest in the land. That gives right to his client to file this appeal even if he did not attend or make representation of his claim at the hearing.
11. I have read the sworn statement by the Appellant Billy Ansa filed on 26^th August 2016 however, I am not able to find or the Appellant did not state he was present at the land acquisition public hearing conducted on 14 February 2014 for this Fiu River Customary Land or Fiu Catchment area.

The Law

12. Section 66 (1) of the Lands and Titles Acts (Cap 133) states:
    • 66.-(1) Any person who is aggrieved by any act or determination of the Acquisition Officer may within three months from the date of the record or determination appeal to a Magistrate's Court and such court may make such order as it considers just.
13. This provision does not come out from the blue rather for persons who were party or had made representation at the acquisition hearing. If such person or persons are aggrieved to the determination of the acquisition officer, they may appeal to the Magistrate Court.
14. The appeal must on the determination of the acquisition officer and the act and process that requires under the provision of sections 62 to 65 of the Lands and Titles Acts.
15. That simply mean the act of the acquisition officer in the determination recording, hearing and making decision, which includes the demarcation, publication of notices, and holding a hearing or meeting.
16. It should not be mere effect but the context of section 66 of the Lands and Titles Acts that person who is aggrieved must be a party in the first instances (hearing). If you are not a party at the first instances before the Acquisition officers then you have no right of appeal^[1].
17. The appeal under section 66 is clearly to deal with the apparent claim of rights from those named the agreement for lease the Acquisition officer made with the persons (owners) to lease the subjected land and any claim made at the land acquisition public hearing. If you did not make any claim (as the Appellant) then you cannot claim or have standing in the court.
18. There may be claim or rights of the appellant on the land acquired under the process of Part V of the Lands and Titles Act which he may pursue such claim on other process.
19. I am satisfied that the appellant did not appear or did not present any his claim at the public hearing and to take his claim through an appeal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court.

Order of the Court

(i) The appeal by the Appellant is refused and strike out.
(ii) Defendant to pay the costs of the Appellants
(iii) No further order

THE COURT
Hon. Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge

^[1] Aluya v Jubi and Hawindu [1992] PNGLR 306 (7 December 1992)