Laealaha v Tohuinoni [1995] SBHC 56; HC-LAC 008 of 1995 (13 October 1995)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Land Appeal Case No. 8 of 1995

AZIEL LAEALAHA

-v-

JOHN TOHUINONI

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.)

Hearing: 13 October 1995
Judgment: 13 October 1995

A. Radclyffe for the Appellant
J. Wasiraro for the Respondent

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

MURIA CJ: This is an Appeal against the decision of the Malaita Customary Land Appeal Court in Land Case No. 2/92.

There are three grounds of Appeal:

1.	No reasonable tribunal could reach the findings made by the CLAC on the evidence before it.
2.	The CLAC erred in law in deciding that “res judicata” did not apply in respect of the previous court decisions affecting the land.
3.	The Respondent gave the land in dispute a different tribal name, Walaiheno Land, in an attempt to avoid the principle of res judicata.

Evidence to be considered are those adduced before CLAC and those in the Local court record which is also before the CLAC.

Perusing those evidence does clearly show that the decision made by the CLAC could not be supported. The evidence and the conclusion reached by the Local Court are of considerable force which could not be swayed by the evidence before the CLAC.

The argument on “res judicata” in this case is one that must obviously be upheld. One need only to cast an eye on the record to come to an undoubted conclusion that as between the respondent and the appellant the case over Asirara Land is “res judicata.” It is rather surprising that the CLAC was able to hold that “res judicata” did not apply when in law the matter was clearly so.

The respondent is clearly a party if not, a privy to all the previous proceedings over Asirara Land. Hence he is bound by the decisions in the those previous cases. See Talasasa -v- Paia (1980-1981) SILR 93.

Letter of 23/9/84 is a clear evidence that the respondent and Joe Maesiara as well as Sale (Charles) Noa are of the same line. If not, they are certainly privy to each other. Further, the land they are claiming to be theirs in that letter is Asirara Land not Walaiheno Land as the respondent later claimed in the CLAC.

Unless the respondent can point to any evidence to contradict what is stated in that letter, the land we are dealing with is Asirara land and not Walaiheno.

All the grounds of appeal are upheld.

Appeal allowed.

Set aside the decision of CLAC and confirm the Local Court’s decision of 3 April 1992.

(Sir John Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE