Sinovagege v Eagon Resources Development Company Ltd [1993] SBHC 82; HCSI-CC 217 of 1992 (18 August 1993)

CC - 217/92.HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 217 of 1992

SINOVAGEGE

V

EAGON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)

Civil Case No. 217 of 1992

Hearing: 17 August 1993
Judgment: 18 August 1993

J. Sullivan and T. Kama for the Applicant
P. Lavery for the Respondent

RULING

PALMER J: This is an application for further variation of this courts order dated the 15th of June 1993. That order made specific provisions for the plaintiff’s claim to chieftainship over his tribes ownership of Megarau land to be prosecuted at the Local Courts within a specified time frame. It also provided that upon non-compliance with the time limits as set out, the injunction imposed by this court on the 27 July 1992 and varied on the 21 August 1992 shall be discharged upon application by the 1st defendant. The first Defendant does not wish to make that application for discharge as of right, but rather to make further variations to the order of the 15 June 1993 in view of the administration difficulties faced by the Local Court Clerk to comply with that order. (See affidavit of Davis Vurusu filed on the 11/8/93).

The terms of a draft order proposed by the 1st Defendant has been submitted for my consideration. It is however in respect of para. 4 and 5 of the draft order that the plaintiff takes issue. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 have been agreed to.

It is important not to be overly imposing on the Local Court, because as has happened, there may very well be practical problems and difficulties that prevent the local court hearing from proceeding on any particular date. The need to expedite the hearing is recognised and understood, and the dates fixed should be regarded with all due seriousness. The plaintiff however should not be unnecessarily penalised if the Local Court should not proceed within that week for reasons not within the fault of the plaintiff. I will not add any further clause to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 but as a matter of record, if for any reason the Local Court hearing cannot proceed within the week of the 23rd of August 1993, then it should do so as soon as is practically possible thereafter. The same applies to the requirement that the judgment be given on or before 10 September 1992.

On the other hand, if the injunction is allowed to remain, then the company may pull out due to possible losses as a result of further delay and the plaintiff and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants would all have lost out.

The balance of convenience in my view favours the lifting of the injunction as spelled out in paragraph 5(b).

Should logging actually commence within the 6 months of the Local Courts decision, all royalties due under the agreement between the 2nd - 6th Defendants and the 1st Defendant would still remain intact in the hands of the 1st Defendant’s Solicitor. This would greatly reduce any possibility, in the event that the plaintiff wins his claim, of the 1st Defendant not being able to pay damages for the losses that the plaintiff may have incurred.

At no time has it been suggested that the 1st Defendant would not be in a position to pay for the losses that the plaintiff may incur.

The Order as amended are accordingly made.

(A.R. Palmer)
JUDGE