IN THE WESTERN CUSTOMARY LAND APPEAL COURT

CLAC No. 24 of 2012

Timber Right Appellant Jurisdiction

IN THE MATTER OF:
THE FOREST RESOURCES AND TIMBER UTILISATION ACT [CAP40]

AND:

THE FOREST RESOURCES AND TIMBER UTILISATION [APPEALS] REGULATIONLN 22/1905

IN THE MATTER OF:
VAQUNI CUSTOMARY LAND TIMBER RIGHT APPEAL

BETWEEN:

Chief Philimon PITAVOQA,
Nicholas BILIKI
John Smith PITABELAMA
Appellants

AND:

Chief Rence PIRUKANA
Henry PITAKAJI & others
Respondents

JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. 	This is a timber right appeal filed against the decision of the Choiseul Provincial Executive (CPE) on Vaquni customary land timber rights hearing held on the 24th and 25th of October 2012.
2. 	The Choiseul Provincial Executive determined in favour of the Respondents that Rence PIRUKANA, Henry PITAKAJI, Elijah BIRUBATU, Job GORI and Edison RIVOGANI as the right people to grant timber rights on Vaquni (Sisiru) customary land. From that decision, the appellants filed an application of appeal against the Choiseul Provincial Executive determination.
3. 	All parties to the sitting were served by way of notice to attend the hearing at Gizo magistrates' court on the 9th of May 2013. In responding upon the notice, both parties appear, except for the 1st Respondent.
Brief history of this case
4. 	There was an application made by the Delta Timber Ltd to negotiate timber rights over that land refer to as VAQUNI land under section 7 of the FRTUA. A Timber right was held at Taro station and parties have presented their submission concerning the proposal.
5. 	The evidence presented during the timber right is that the land claimed as Vaquni owned by the Sisiru tribe was represented by Chief Renee PIRUKANA. All along, the following evidence was presented during the Timber Right hearing on 24th of October 2012.
6. 	Sisiru land (Vaquni) is a portion within Lukuloboro land and the ownership of the land was confirmed in a Local Court deceision (LC No:2 of 1977).
7. 	There was an appeal filed by Mr Rence PIRUKANA against the same Appellant on the same land in 2003. The CLAC ruled in favour of Mr. PIRUKANA which indicates the ownership of Sisiru land remains with him.
8. 	On the other hand, the Appellant contended that the portion of land call Sisiru or Vaquni is within the perimeters of the mother land owned by the Lukuloboro tribes, therefore, the CPE is erred to determine on that land.
9. 	Despite those heavy disputes submitted during the timber rights, the CPE continue to put on public notice of Form II.
10. 	The appellant make an application requires under section 10 of the FRTU (amendment) Act 2000, CAP 40. This is where; Any person, who is aggrieved by the determination of the said Provincial Executive, may within a month from the date of this notice, appeal to the Customary Land of Appeal Court (CLAC),
Grounds of Appeal
Ground 1.
The Choiseul Provincial Executive erroneously made its determination to grant timber tights to persons not representing all persons lawfully entitle to grant such right
11. 	Mr. PITABELAMA contended that the land in question is a portion of land among the mother land owns by the Lukuloboro tribe. The whole tribe (Lukuloboro) don't agree that the persons who granted timber right over Vaquni (Sisiru) land are not representing the whole Lukuloboro tribe.
12. 	In response, Chief Rence PIRUKANA and his parties reiterated in support of the CPE determination held on the 24th and 25th of October 2012. Further to their submission, the respondents contended that they have never been part of the Nukuloboro tribe, as claimed by the appellants. Therefore, they were not obliged to seek representation from the Lukuloboro tribe over Vaquni customary land.
13. 	After considering submissions from both parties, the court is of the view that the Choiseul provincial executive does erred in the face of law to grant timber rights in favour of the Respondents. This ground of appeal is dismissed.
Ground 2
The Choiseul Provincial Executive failed to seriously take into consideration the points rose by objectors that Rence PIRUKANA has been using contradictory statements and evidence in support of his claim:
14. 	There was no submission in this court to substantiate that the CPE failed to consider that Rence PRUKANA has been using contradictory statements to support his claim.