Peseika v Attorney General [2017] SBCA 15; SICOA-CAC 38 of 2016 (13 October 2017)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL

NATURE OF JURISDICTION:	Appeal from Judgment of The High Court of Solomon Islands (Palmer, Chief Justice)
COURT FILE NUMBER:	Civil Appeal Case No. 38 of 2016 (On Appeal from High Court Civil Case No. 404, 405, 408 & 484 of 2015)
DATE OF HEARING:	2 October 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 October 2017
THE COURT:	Goldsbrough P Ward JA Hansen JA
PARTIES:	JOHNSTON PESEIKA, DAVID TAGO AND HON. ANTHONY TAMAIKA WILLIE SAU KAITU’U & GAD SAONUKU, DAVID SOKAIKA SANDERS TUHAMANO AND WARREN OEA SA’OSOGO & REX SOAIKA & JEFTER TUHAGENGA - V – ATTORNEY GENERAL & DICTER MAITAKI, SILVANIAS KAIPUA JOSEPH TAUPONGI & WILLIAM TINO & ASIA PACIFIC INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
ADVOCATES: APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS: 1ST 2ND 3RD	Mr. W. Rano Mr. Damilea Mr. J Ivanisevic & Mr Togamae Mr. Suri Mrs A. Willie for applicant
KEY WORDS:
EXTEMPORE/RESERVED:
ALLOWED/DISMISSED	ALLOWED
PAGES	1- 3

RULING OF THE COURT

1. The appellants were claimants in four actions numbers CC 404, 405, 408 and 484 of 2015 relating, inter alia, to the grant of a mining lease and surface access rights, the acquisition of the relevant land in West Rennell and registration of a perpetual estate in the land. The claim included allegations against the land acquisition officer, a private land consultant, Laury Palmer, appointed by the Commissioner of Lands. The relief sought included orders that the acquisition be declared a nullity or void ab intio and quashed.
   
2. As is usual in such cases, the government parties were represented by the Attorney General and Mr Palmer was included. In the light of the serious nature of the allegations being made against him in person and the manner in which his defence was being conducted, he sought to be joined as a separate party.
   
3. On 19 January 2016 Mr Palmer instructed his own lawyer and a Notice of Change of Advocate and a Defence were filed.
   
4. No decision appears to have been made on the application to be named as a separate defendant and the intituling of the action remained unchanged but his lawyer was permitted to appear and make submissions in respect of the hearing before Faukona J on 30 August and 1 and 2 September 2016. The learned judge’s ruling was delivered on 29 November 2016 and, for the first time. Mr Palmer was separately and individually named as second respondent.
5. An appeal was brought against the decision in the High Court and Mr Palmer was, once again, included as part of the Attorney General’s representation.
   
6. He again applied to this Court to be joined or separately named. At the hearing of his application, the other parties had no objection with the sole exception of the appellants represented by Mr. Rano.
   
7. The Court gave leave to Mr. Rano to file submissions and time for any responses from other counsel. Mr. Rano has filed two authorities and there have been no additional submissions filed by any party. The additional authorities filed by Mr. Rano do not advance the matter.
   
8. We order that Mr Palmer be named separately as second respondent and be separately represented.
   
9. The title of the appeal is to be corrected by the addition of the applicant as second respondent and the present second and third respondents renamed as third and fourth respondents.
   

......................................................
Goldsbrough P
......................................................
Ward JA
......................................................
Hansen JA