You are here:
PacLII >>
Databases >>
Court of Appeal of Solomon Islands >>
2014 >>
[2014] SBCA 9
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Kikolo v Viulu [2014] SBCA 9; SICOA-CAC 32 of 2013 (9 May 2014)
IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL
NATURE OF JURISDICTION: | Appeal from Judgment of the High Court of Solomon Islands (Faukona J.) |
COURT FILE NUMBER: | Civil Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013 (On Appeal from High Court Civil Case No. 279 of 2010) |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 APRIL 2014 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 9 MAY 2014 |
THE COURT: | Justice Goldsbrough JA, President Justice Williams JA Sir Gordon Ward JA, |
PARTIES: | Patterson Kikolo Appellant -V – Deslike Viulu 1st Respondent Selwyn Riumana 2ndRespondent |
Advocates: Appellants: Respondent: | Mr. W. Togamae, W.K T. Lawyers Appellants Mr. M. Tagini, Global Lawyers Respondent |
Key words | Copra Shed and Customary Land |
EX TEMPORE/RESERVE: | RESERVED |
ALLOWED/DISMISSED | Appeal Dismissed |
PAGES | 1- 6 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
- This is an appeal from a decision following trial in the High Court on 20 November 2013. It concerns the sale of a copra shed built
originally by the Commodities Export Marketing Authority (CEMA) at Susubona Village, Isabel Province.
- There is evidence before the Court that CEMA when terminating an agency agreement with the Appellant indicated an intention to sell
the copra shed to its former agent. Although that actual sale did not take place, the same shed was bought by relatives of the 1st
Respondent, that is to say, Samson and Susan Viulu.
- Evidence of that sale is contained in the evidence of the Appellant. The Appellant says that when Samson and Susan bought the copra
shed they did not do so in their own right but as representatives of their tribe, the Kefu tribe. He produced documents surrounding
the sale and in particular a document from CEMA in which there is reference, after Samson and Susan's names, to being of Kefu tribe.
There is further evidence of the Appellant that he proffered $10,000 in part payment of the sale price paid on behalf of the tribe
to the 1st Respondents or their representative. That part payment was at first accepted and then returned. His evidence continues
to suggest that the arrangement at first amicable was reneged upon by the 1st Respondents following a family quarrel.
- It is a further submission of the Appellant that Samson and Susan could not have acted in their own right to purchase a building on
customary land. His submission is that only a tribe can purchase buildings on customary land and that CEMA had dealt with the tribe
and not individual members earlier
- After the purchase from CEMA the 1st Respondent sold the copra shed to the 2nd Respondent. The copra shed having been purchased from
CEMA for $20,000 the 1st respondent sold it on for $57,000 to the 2nd respondent.
- There is evidence from the trial as to ownership of the land on which the copra shed is built. There is evidence of a finding of Chiefs
that the customary land on which the copra shed is built belongs to the Pau Tribe of which the 2nd Respondent is a member. Significantly,
there was nothing put before the trial judge to raise any issue about that decision of the Chiefs.
- The trial judge heard from a number of witnesses and received a number of exhibits through the admission of sworn statements. Counsel
in this appeal have confirmed that the documents relied on within the appeal book were in fact all properly before the trial judge
in some way. It was one such exhibit that represents the decision of the Chiefs in favour of the 2nd Respondent over this land.
- The claim as filed sought orders:-
- Permanently restraining the respondents from taking possession of the former CEMA building at Susubona
- General damages
- Costs.
- The claim, after trial, was dismissed.
- The grounds of appeal are:-
- The learned judge erred in law in determining that the second respondent is the customary owner of the Susubona land being where the
CEMA building is, as it lacks jurisdiction to make such determination and such judgment is not done under the Local Courts Act
- The learned judge erred in law in determining that there was a valid contract of sale between CEMA and the first defendants for the
sale of the shed
- The learned judge erred in law and fact in CEMA sold the shed not to Kefu tribe but to the first respondent or his family
- The learned judge erred in law and fact determining that there was no contract of sale between the Kefu tribe and CEMA
- The learned judge erred in law and fact in determining that the shed can be disposed of without the issue on ownership of customary
land.
- It is not clear from the judgment that the learned judge made any findings as to customary ownership. It is clear from the materials
that there was evidence of a finding in respect of ownership of customary land from a decision of the chiefs exhibited in the evidence
of the 2nd respondent. A trial judge in the High Court is entitled, in our view, to note such a decision and act upon it accordingly.
If that trial judge makes a finding that is open to him on the evidence that a particular building falls within that customary land,
he is not trespassing into the realm of customary ownership reserved for the Chiefs or the Local Court.
- As to the second ground, it was the evidence of the Appellant himself that there was a sale between CEMA and the 1st Respondent or
his family. The question is not that the sale took place between them but as to whether at the time of the sale they acted for themselves
or as tribal representatives taking up an offer only available to the tribe. There was evidence on that point and it seems to us
that a finding either way is open to the trial judge on the evidence. That point is better raised in the third ground of appeal.
- In considering that third ground the learned trial judge considered the evidence before him and arrived at the conclusion that Samson
and Susan Viulu acted in their own right and were entitled to act in their own right. He found that the letter from CEMA terminating
the agency agreement with the Appellant indicated an intention to offer the building to the tribe and a further indication that an
offer would follow but that in fact the offer never did follow. Nor did he find that the Appellant followed up himself when the offer
did not arrive.
- Ground four is simply ground three expressed in a different way. The trial judge found that Samson and Susan Viulu acted in their
own right and not on behalf of their tribe and that, they were entitled to do so.
- It is implicit in his findings that the trial judge found that the building to be situate on land belonging to the Pau Tribe by virtue
of the finding of the Chiefs. The letter terminating the agency agreement and offering the copra shed to their agent makes no reference
to ownership of the land where the copra shed stood. It is not clear whether the Appellant submits that implicit in that offer is
that CEMA understood the building to be on the land of the Appellant. That is not stated in any of the materials put into evidence
from CEMA by the Appellant. Nor is there an express finding of the trial judge that the copra shed is within the land held by the
1st respondent for his own tribe as part of the decision of the chiefs of 29 August 1997. That decision appears as Exhibit RS3 to
the affidavit of the 2nd Respondent. From the exhibited minutes it is apparent that both the Pau tribe and the Kefu tribe attended
that meeting, which included both the present Appellant and the present 2nd Respondent, the Appellant being part of the losing party.
- It is of concern to this Court that there is nowhere to be found in the Appeal book any attempt at a transcript of the trial judge's
notes or indeed many of the documents exhibited during the trial referred to in the reason for judgment or referred to in counsels'
submissions. It is not clear why this is the case. Fortunately, those documents are all agreed to have been available to the judge
and his hand written notes of evidence are within the High Court file. They should, though in our view, have formed a part of the
Appeal Book. At this hearing counsel indicated their consent to this Court making reference to the handwritten notes of the judge
should the same be necessary to determine this appeal.
- We find that the learned trial judge did no more in this matter than make findings open to him on the evidence. We note in particular
that there was no suggestion during the trial questioning the validity of the decision of the Chiefs declaring customary ownership
of this land to the tribe of the 2nd Respondent.
- During this appeal, counsel for the Appellant submits that ownership of Susubona Land remains a live issue, but there is no evidence
of that either before this Court or before the trial court. A trial judge cannot be found to be at fault if matters are not brought
to his attention during a trial, and this Court has not been asked to allow further evidence to be admitted. Absent material put
before the trial judge indicating that the decision of the Chiefs is not an accepted decision it is only to be expected that the
trial judge will act upon it.
- Accepting as the Appellant must, given that he led no evidence of a continuing land dispute, that the only decision so far on land
ownership is in favour of the 2nd Respondents' tribe then he has no right to ask for the 2nd respondent to be restrained from dealing
with the land or the buildings on it. If anyone is to complain it may be the 2nd Respondent.
- There is also the question which was never raised in the trial and cannot now be answered on this appeal as to whether payment to
CEMA was in fact for improvements to the land rather than for the building itself. In any event given the quite proper finding of
the trial judge that would not assist the Appellant.
- In the event this appeal must be and is dismissed with costs of the appeal ordered to be paid by the Appellants, such costs to be
agreed or taxed.
...........................
Goldsbrough JA
President of the Court of Appeal
...........................
Williams JA
Member of the Court of Appeal
...........................
Sir Ward JA
Member of the Court of Appeal
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBCA/2014/9.html