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

  Download original PDF

Wiki v Lamani [2014] SBLC 4; Civil Case 32 of 2013 (14 January 2014)

IN THE MALAITA LOCAL COURT
Civil jurisdiction

Civil Case No. 32 of 2013
GTR No. B1427825

BETWEEN:

JOHN WIKI & PATRIC DAUDAU
Complainant

AND:

GABRIEL RAMO LAMANI & JOHN BEUI
Defendant

IN THE MATTER OF:
INQUIRY INTO THE ACCEPTED SETTLEMENT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 32 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:
SECTION 14 OF THE LOCAL COURT ACT [CAP 19]

IN THE MATTER OF:
FERAFALU & LOLO CUSTOMARY LAND BOUNDARY MAPS

DATE OF INQUIRY: 14TH JANUARY 2014
DATE OF RULING: 14TH JANUARY 2014

THE COURT: PHILIP WALE(V/P), SOLO NENE(C/J) & ILITA ILIMANU (C/J)

RULING

A. Preamble

This is the ruling to the Local Court inquiry into the Accepted Settlement at Luma'alu on 21st of November 2013, the issue in Civil Case No. 32 of 2013 between John Wiki and Patric Daudau (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) and Gabriel Ramo Lamani and John Beui (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) and which is also the subject of the current inquiry by this Court. It is the written notes to the ruling delivered orally in open court before the parties on 14th January 2014.

B. Factual Background to Case

1. On or around 23rd December 2013, the Complainant lodged with the Malaita Local Court the Accepted Settlement, the subject of this inquiry. That Accepted Settlement was filed as Civil Case No. 32 of 2013 as between the Complainant and Defendant. On the same date, the Local Court Officer issued a letter noticing the Defendant of the case that was filed and advised both the Complainant and the Defendant that the Local Court will inquire into that Accepted Settlement on 14th January 2014 and requiring the presence of both the Complainant and the Defendant at Auki on that date. A summon was also issued with the letter of notice.

2. On 14th January 2014, both the Complainant and the Defendant appeared before the Court. The Court explained the purpose of the hearing or inquiry and proceedings ensued.

During the proceedings, the Defendant raised some objections. Those objections are contained in a letter by the Defendant addressed to the Clerk of the Malaita Local Court. That letter was also submitted to the Court and read in open court during the inquiry hearing. The Court ruled out the objections by the Defendant after having given the Complainant a chance to respond to those objections. A copy of the written notes to the Court's ruling on the Defendant's objections delivered orally in open court is in the case file. That should be read with this ruling as it is also of relevance to the inquiry.

3. The Court inquired into the Accepted Settlement by examining or questioning the Complainant and the Defendant in open court on questions relating to the Accepted Settlement. The response by the Complainant and the Defendant to the questions raised by Court is the basis of the ruling of this Court on the subject or issue before the Court. The inquiry questions raised by this Court are outlined below:

To the Complainant:

Q1. Did you attend the Luma'alu chiefs settlement?

Q2. Did you sign any settlement form?

To the Defendant:

Q3. Did you attend the chiefs settlement at Luma'alu of 21st November 2013?

Q4. Did the Plaintiff attend the chiefs hearing?

Q5. Did you sign the Accepted Settlement form of 21st November 2013

The findings of the Court to the inquiry questions raised by this Court to the Complainant and the Defendant are described below.

C. Findings of this Court to the Inquiry

i. Plaintiff, Patric Daudau did not attend the Luma'alu chiefs settlement on 21st November 2013. This is confirmed by Gabriel Ramo during the questioning by Court,
ii. Plaintiff, Patric Daudau denies signing any Accepted Settlement form before the Chiefs at Luma'alu,
iii. The Chief's hearing is done one-sided as confirmed by Gabriel Ramo, and
iv. Plaintiff did not sign the Accepted Settlement form of 21st November 2013 lodged with the Local Court (Malaita) on 23rd December 2013.

Plaintiff Patric Daudau is the party hereinafter referred to as the Complainant and Gabriel Ramo is the party hereinafter referred to as the Defendant to this ruling.

D. Law Applicable

The relevant law applicable in the inquiry into the Accepted Settlement, the issue in Civil Case No. 32 of 2013 and which is the subject of the inquiry before this Court is Section 14 subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the Local Court Act [Cap 19].

Subsection 14(1) states:

"Where, in any dispute referred to the chiefs, a decision wholly acceptable to both parties has been made by the chiefs, the chiefs or any of the parties to the dispute may, within three months from the date of the decision, cause a copy of the decision to be recorded by the local court"

Subsection 14(2) states:

"A copy of the decision referred to in subsection (1) shall be in such form as prescribed in Form II of the Schedule and shall contain the particulars prescribed in that form and signed by the parties and two or more of the chiefs who took part in making the decision." and

Subsection 14(3) states:

"Any decision recorded by the local court pursuant to subsection (1) shall be deemed to be a decision of the local court for the purpose of any law."

Form II in the Schedule to the Local Court Act [Cap 19] refers to or is the Customary Land Dispute "Accepted Settlement" form.

E. Applying the Law to the Facts of the Case

Applying the relevant law to the facts of this case (the findings of the Court to the inquiry), this Court finds that the statutory requirements of subsections 14(1) and (2) of the Local Court Act [Cap 19] are not satisfied. This Court therefore, refuses to record the findings or decision of the Luma'alu chiefs of 21 November 2013 as the decision of the Local Court pursuant to statutory provisions of subsection 14(3) of the Local Court Act [Cap 19] and rules as follows:

RULING

1. The Accepted Chiefs Settlement made by Luma'alau Council of Chiefs of 21st November 2013 is dismissed

2. No order of costs; parties are to bear their own costs

Parties were reminded in open court to see their lawyers or solicitors if aggrieved by the ruling of this court.

Court Officials
Philip Waletobata - Vice President
Ilita Ilimanu - C/Member
Solo Nene - C/Member
Hillary. D .Fioru - Court clerk