PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Court of Appeal of Solomon Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Court of Appeal of Solomon Islands >> 2019 >> [2019] SBCA 14

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Anasia Corporation Ltd v Pone [2019] SBCA 14; SICOA-CAC 43 of 2018 (18 October 2019)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL


Case name:
Anasia Corporation Ltd v Pone


Citation:



Decision date:
18 October 2019


Nature of Jurisdiction
Appeal from Judgments of The High Court of Solomon Islands (Faukona J)


Court File Number(s):
43 of 2018


Parties:
Anasia Corporation Limited and Rite Trade Pacific Limited v Josiah Pone and Nicholas Maelana


Hearing date(s):
15 October 2019


Place of delivery:



Judge(s):
Goldsbrough P
Lunabek JA
Gavara-Nanu JA


Representation:
Mr. T Matthews QC with S Kofana for the Appellant
Mr. W Rano for the Respondent


Catchwords:



Words and phrases:



Legislation cited:


Cases cited:



ExTempore/Reserved:
Reserved


Allowed/Dismissed:
The appeal is allowed


Pages:
1-8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

  1. This appeal was heard on Tuesday October 15th, 2019. Given that in the court below, the question of the admissibility of evidence was clearly raised but not answered by the trial judge before he relied upon used challenged evidence and delivered his judgment on 16 November 2018, we were clearly of opinion that the appeal has to be allowed; the matter be remitted back to the High Court for a proper assessment of damages; and Costs. We now provide the reasons for our decision.
  2. This appeal was filed on 14 December 2018 challenging the entire judgment of the High Court delivered on Friday 16 November 2018 in Civil Claim numbers 126 and 167 of 2009.
  3. It challenges the principles of law and the basis on which the trial judge assessed and awarded damages in the judgment under appeal.
  4. We note that there is currently in force an order staying enforcement of the judgement issued and sealed by this court on 24 May 2019.
  5. On 20 January 2016, the High Court stayed the proceeding pending the determination of ownership of Hovi customary Land.
  6. The Claimants in civil claim No HC- CC 126 of 2009 who are now the respondents appealed the said judgement to this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2016.
  7. On 14 October 2016, this Court allowed the appeal and made orders that Respondents/Claimants are the owners of the Hovi customary lands. By order 3, the case was remitted back to the High Court on trespass and damages.
  8. The trial on trespass and damages was held on 25 July 2018 at which hearing the parties made oral submission supported by written submission.
  9. On 16 November 2018, the trial Judge found that the Appellants had trespassed. His Lordship assessed:
  10. It is the assessment of damages against which the appellants appeal.
  11. During the hearing of the appeal, Counsel for the appellants pointed out to the court that, at trial, the Respondents relied on the sworn statements by Nicholas Maelana filed on 16 April 2009, 5 August 2009 and 25 April 2010.
  12. He also pointed out that Mr Nicholas Maelana is not an expert in environment to give evidence on how the erosion happened, what caused them and whatever pollution it may be but Mr. Maelana cannot say with certainty what extent or the degree of the damage are.
  13. The photos in exhibit NM8 of the sworn statement of Nicholas Maelana were not independently verified by personnel and from the Environment Division.
  14. He further said that the sworn statement of Nicholas Maelana filed on 23 April 2010 at 237 of the Trial book 1 pages 541 to 551 of the appeal Book, Part IV expressed opinion by Mr. Tura (Exhibit NM1) is the assessment of Hovi Land Customary land carried out by Robert Tura, a principal Forest Officer in the Ministry of Forestry & Research.
  15. Counsel for the Respondents conceded that objections were made on the admissibility of the evidence by Counsel for the Appellants.
  16. Both Counsel expected that the trial judge would make a ruling on the question of admissibility of the evidence as the material evidence and attached exhibits contained in the sworn statements are challenged and the court could not rely on them unless a prior determination was made on their nature, quality and admissibility.
  17. There was no prior ruling made by the trial judge on the question of admissibility of the evidence. The learned trial judge relied on the sworn statements tendered and attached material referred to earlier and gave judgement on the assessment of damages on 16 November 2018 despite objections.
  18. Two grounds of appeal were advanced. We consider them in turn.
  19. Sections 128,129 and 130 provide:
  20. The trial judge made reference to the sworn statements of Mr Nicholas Maelana filed on 16 April 2009, 5 august and on 23 April 2010.
  21. The trial judge commented upon the said sworn statements Mr Nicholas Maelana.
  22. The trial judge admitted into evidence and relied upon the report prepared by Mr Tura and the Photos exhibited to sworn statements by Mr Maelana of 16 April 2009 purporting to show environmental damage and land degradation.
  23. It is submitted that the findings based thereon by the trial judge were erroneous in law.
  24. We consider and agree with the submissions made by Counsel for the Appellants. Until a decision is made by the trial judge on the question of admissibility, the evidence is not properly before him. There must be an answer given on admissibility and whatever that decision is will determine what evidence is available for consideration.
  25. Sections 117 and 118 provide:
  26. We consider and agree with the submissions of the Appellants’ Counsel that the Court failed to determine the question. Prima facie, the assessment report of Mr. Tura is hearsay.
  27. The trial Judge erred in law by not having provided a decision on admissibility. A decision remains to be taken as to whether the report may be admitted into evidence in those circumstances.
  28. These are the reasons of the decision we made on 15th October 2019. We now make the following formal orders:

Orders

  1. The appeal is allowed;
  2. The assessment of damages is remitted back to the High Court for assessment;
  3. The Respondents shall pay the Appellants’ costs of and incidental to the appeal on the standard basis including certification for overseas counsel.

Dated this 18th October 2019
BY THE COURT
Goldsbrough (P)
Lunabek (JA)
Member
Gavara-Nanu (JA)
Member


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBCA/2019/14.html