Galoghasa v Bulacan Integrated (SI) Co. Ltd [2017] SBCA 14; SICOA-CAC 34 of 2017 (13 October 2017)

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. 34 of 2017 (On Appeal from High Court Civil Case No. 411 of 2014)
DATE OF HEARING:	6 October 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 October 2017
THE COURT:	Goldsbrough P Ward JA Hansen JA
PARTIES:	GADDLY GALOGHASA - V – BULACAN INTEGRATED (SI) COMPANY LTD & ORS
ADVOCATES: APPELLANT: RESPONDENT:	Mrs. L. Ramo Mr. M. Tagini
KEY WORDS:
EXTEMPORE/RESERVED:
ALLOWED/DISMISSED
PAGES	1- 3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. This appeal arises from the early dismissal of a claim filed in the High Court alleging trespass and damage. The claim relates to land known as Zeleboe customary land in South Choiseul. Interlocutory relief was also sought, prior to the claim, in relation to a logging operation. The first relief was sought in early December 2014.
   
2. The claimants do not assert within their claim that they have established rights of ownership of the land in question. At its highest, the claimants assert that they may be successful in obtaining an order in their favour from the Local Court in customary land ownership proceedings. Since the claim was commenced they have been unsuccessful before a Council of Chiefs. That Council of Chiefs determined land ownership against this Appellant and in favour of the Respondent. It is that decision which is currently awaiting further consideration in the Local Court. The determination of the Council of Chiefs was in January 2015 and this claim was dismissed in October 2016.
   
3. On this appeal it is submitted that the trial judge was wrong to dismiss the claim whilst the dispute remains unresolved. That is described as an error. There is no ground of appeal on the early termination procedure which resulted in the dismissal, and for that reason we will not touch upon the early termination provisions contained in Chapter 9 of the Solomon Islands (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007 (the Rules).
   
4. This claim was summarily dismissed and the injunctive relief was ended on the application of the Respondents to strike out and at an inter partes hearing on the injunctive relief that had earlier been ordered. That interim relief had been in force, by the time of this appealed decision, for one year and ten months.
   
5. As the trial judge pointed out in his reasons for judgment at paragraph 14 this claim was not brought seeking the assistance of the High Court as referred to by Palmer CJ in Sira v Maemae [2007] SBHC 95 following Gandly Simbe v East Choiseul Area Council [1999 SBCA 9. That principle is, in our view, a correct principle and remains, and should remain, in full force. A claim such as this, brought as it was, is not the proper way to seek the intervention of the High Court to assist the lower courts in working towards resolving the issues of ownership.
   
6. It is wrong, again in our view, to submit that the trial judge in dismissing this claim and ending the injunctive relief, found that the ownership dispute had reached a final conclusion. That is not indicated in his judgment nor is it a necessary conclusion to be reached prior to making such an order. The learned judge was clearly aware of the continuing dispute as illustrated from paragraphs 6 and 7 of his judgment. At paragraph 8 he refers to the position put forward by the claimants to support the initial injunctive relief in December 2014 that they expected their rights of ownership to be vindicated at the chiefs hearing in January 2015. In that they were disappointed. The decision of the chiefs did not favour the Appellants. Nor did the Timber Rights process out of which the Respondents were granted a Felling Licence.
   
7. If the matter had been brought seeking the assistance of the High Court as referred to above, the Respondents would have been entitled to submit that, having been successful in land ownership claims before the chiefs and with the timber rights process also concluded in their favour they equally were entitled to some assistance to vindicate those rights. Whilst there had been an attempt to appeal the Timber Rights process by the Appellants in these proceedings, that attempt at an appeal had been concluded, again not in favour of the Appellants.
   
8. In the event the grounds of this appeal have not been made out. The appeal is dismissed. An order for costs of and incidental to this appeal is made in favour of the Respondents to the appeal, such costs to be agreed or assessed and in any event to be paid within a reasonable period of time.
   

......................................................
Goldsbrough P

......................................................
Ward JA

......................................................
Hansen JA