Siru v Saefafia [2007] SBCLAC 1; CLAC Case No 3 of 2000 (31 May 2007)

IN THE MALAITA CUSTOMARY APPEAL COURT

SOLOMON ISLANDS

CASE NO: CLAC 3/2000

BETWEEN:

ALLEN SIRU
KIRIMAOMA
PLAINTIFFS

AND:

SAUL SAEFAFIA
OROMAE BOSOKURU
BENJAMIN KIRIMAOMA
DEFENDANTS

RE: BABALEKONA LAND

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the Local Court to the Customary Land Appeal Court by the Appellants against the decision of the Local Court case 18 / 1998. This case was originated from a Civil Case 19 / 1998 between the appellant and the Respondent in regard to trespass. It was during this case the issue of ownership aroused and the Principal Magistrate, Malaita gave orders:

1. " ...to decide whether Siru Luluakalo purchased Babalekona Land for himself and for his. immediate family,
2. whether Siru Luluakalo purchased for himself his immediate family and for his extended family,
3. Who should be the leader and the boss of the land.

This case had properly gone through chiefs and the settlement done was unaccepted. The Local. Court's decision was not unaccepted by the appellant.

The appellant had four grounds of appeal and each ground will be discussed accordingly.

On the first ground of appeal the appellant argued that the Local Court had fail miserably to consider the documentary evidences tendered during Local Court hearing. The Appellant submitted that MC/6/52, CRC 157/92, LA 4/96and CC 25/96 had stated or directly indicated that he is the owner of Babalekona land. The Respondent on the other hand stated in his submission that he had nothing to tell the court since appeal ground number one is not against him. He further stated that ground number, two, three and four are against the Local Court's decision.

This Court is going to discuss the documentary evidences referred to in ground number one. Firstly with regards to case number MC/6/52, the case was not about ownership of land. The issue in question in regards to this case was for the court to find the precise definition of Babalekona boundary. In this case Court had found and defined the boundary of Babalekona. Not only that but at page 10 paragraph 4 line 8 Local Court further indicated in its decision that it upholds a previous decision that the "whole of this piece of ground [Babalekona] is owned by Buagalena. In that the court had found nothing that indicated the land is owned by the appellants.

This Court had also examined the evidences relied on by the appellant in the case CRC 157/92. This case was a criminal case held at the Malaita Magistrate Court. The main issue in this case was criminal trespass. There were three accused charged with criminal trespass. The complainant in the case was Allan Siru who alleged he was the Land owner. There were no evidences to proof ownership although his name was stipulated in the case.

In the case LA 4/96, the main issue is the boundary. We found that this case is not directly deal with ownership of land. And it would be wrong if the court take into consideration the findings in this case in regard to ownership of land.

In the case CC 25/96, the objective of the case was also about trespass. This case did not mention the appellant as a landowner. In fact the presiding Magistrate ordered the question of ownership to be referred to the chiefs to decide on.

As stated above it would be wrong for the court to take into consideration the evidences stipulated in the previous cases because all the cases did not deal with the ownership of Babalekona land. Therefore appeal ground number one is consequently dismissed.

Ground two, the appellant argued that the Local Court did not consider the documentary evidences submitted by him. He also stated that the Respondent relied on a witness that was not corroborated.

Documentary evidences were discussed above in appeal ground number one and had been dismissed by this court and therefore this court would not be able to repeat the discussion. On the issue of corroboration, there were two witnesses who gave evidence as to the payment of Babalekona land. This court found it difficult to identify which of the three witnesses the appellant referred to. However this Court assumed that the appellant was referring to Isael Didia's evidence. Isael Didia's evidence was clearly corroborated by the evidence given by Edmond Tema. Both witnesses were under oath and had stated that there was a payment made (by the Respondent). DW2 had pointed out that Ladomae was present at the time of the payment and had contributed a Kasa. Therefore this Court finds that there was corroboration of evidences by the Defendant's witnesses. Appeal ground two is therefore dismissed.

With regards to appeal ground three, the appellant had voiced that the Local Court had tailed in considering Isael Didia's evidence, especially in regard to undue influence. This court has significantly examined this and seen that there was no undue influence.

Even when there was no undue influence, it had not affected the decision of this Court. This court had agreed that the Local Court had made an implication that there was undue influence. The question is if there was no undue influence will that change the decision of the Court. The primary evidences had been received and there was corroboration to it. Therefore it does not matter whether there was undue or no undue influence. Appeal ground number three is therefore dismissed.

In Appeal ground number four, the evidences tendered or submitted to court by the appellant had been heavily discussed in appeal ground number one. This Court had found that the Local Court was not wrong in Law or fact because the evidence produced by the Appellant in terms of previous cases were not about ownership of land. Therefore appeal ground number four is consequently dismissed.

With regards to payment this court had taken into consideration that there were payments made by both parties.

COURT DECREE

1. Appellant's appeal is dismissed in its entirety
2. That the Respondent had made the first payment and the Appellant made the second payment.
3. The Respondents representing Barnabas Bosokuru and their family have the primary ownership of Babalekona land. The boundary of their land is stipulated in the Local Court 18/98 survey report and according to the defendants' map.
4. The Appellants representing Allen Siru and their family have the primary ownership of Babalekona land. The boundary of their land is stipulated in the Local Court 18/98 survey report and according to the plaintiffs' map.
5. Parties to bear their own cost

Any party wishing to lodge an appeal against this decision must do so within 3 months from the date this decision is delivered.
COURT MEMBERS

Adam Kwaeria	President
Stanely Toata	Member
Jackson Lea'afuna	Member
George Wate	Member
Jacob Rahe	Member
Philip Hotoahu	Member
Flickson Samani	Clerk

Dated at Auki 31st day of May 2007