Waneai v Linganafelo [1991] SBHC 19; HC-LAC 006 of 1990 (25 February 1991)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Land Appeal Case No. 6 of 1990

GEORGE WANEAI

-v-

GEORGE LINGANAFELO

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Ward C.J.)

Hearing: 25 February 1991
Judgment: 25 February 1991

J. Remobatu for the Appellant
Respondent in person

WARD CJ: This is an appeal against the decision of the Customary Land Appeal Court (Malaita) on Suluatoli/Lumalao land. The Court sat on 11th December 1989 and a survey was held on 18th December 1989.

There are three grounds of appeal:

1. Objection against the Court President was objected or ignored.
   
2. The spokesman for the appellant was seen in the company of three court members discussing together on the 14/12/89 and the hearing was on the 11/12/89 and the survey took place on the 18/12/89.
   
3. The M.C.L.A.C forced its way through different lands, despite the strong protest from the tribes, concern.
   

On the day of the hearing, the record shows that the present appellant who was the respondent in the court below did object to the President on the ground that he was a good friend of the spokesman for the other side. He also objected to one other on the ground that he was a close relative of the spokesman.

The court retired and, on its return, recorded:

"objection re. Joseph Kaia not valid knows lot of people, not mean he is biased. - objection re. Michael Daka valid as related to Appellants, his brother witness in Local Court."

Mr Remobatu seeks to urge the Court that they did not properly consider the matter. I am afraid I cannot agree. Where an objection is raised, the Court must hear the objection and investigate it as far as they consider necessary and then, on the matters before them, make a decision. If that procedure is followed this Court will be reluctant to interfere unless the decision is plainly wrong.

The justices did consider this case and came to a reasonable conclusion. The mere fact that one of the justices knows a spokesman in the case is not reason to decide there is bias. Had it gone further, as in the objection to the other member, it may have been different.

The second ground was supported by the evidence of Andrew Tonowane who is related to the appellant.

He told the Court how he saw the respondent's spokesman speaking to four justices three of whom were involved in this case. That occurred on 14th December which meant it was after the hearing and before the survey. The Court has pointed out many times the danger of contact between the justices and the parties in cases before them. It was an unfortunate incident in this case but, before the Court interferes, it must feel the circumstances are such that a reasonably minded member of the public might feel there was a chance of injustice.

The evidence given by the witness, and I accept it for this purpose, was that the spokesman was standing three feet in front of one of the justices and speaking to him whilst the other justices were clearly in the conversation also. One of those justices was not sitting on this case. As the witness approached, the spokesman turned to leave and said "O.K. Hem olsem nao." The witness felt at that moment he was seen by the spokesman who then turned back and looked guilty. No other words were overhead. The matter was reported to the appellant immediately by the witness but it was not apparently raised at the survey.

I do not, for one moment, consider such an incident in a public place with a number of justices could raise suspicions in the minds of the normal public.

The last ground is based on the fact that, when the court went to conduct the survey, a number of landowners disputed their right to start at the place they did start. The justices refused to listen and conducted the survey as they considered best.

Far from giving rise to a criticism of the justices, it seems to me they acted properly in not listening to arguments raised by people who were not parties to the action before them.

Appeal dismissed.

(F.G.R. Ward)
CHIEF JUSTICE