Szabados v Vavataga [1996] SBHC 46; HC-CC 232 of 1995 (16 September 1996)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No: 232 of 1995

ign="center">ter">MIHALY SZABADOS, JOHN MARAHORA
(TRADING AS OCEANIC INDUSTRIES SOLOMON ISLANDS)

-v-

>

SEMITI VAVATAGA

="3">Before: AWICH, J

Hearing: 16 September 1996 - Ruling: 16 September 1996

Counsel: T Kama for the plaintiffs; A Radclyffe for the Defendant

RULING

AWICH, J.:

A very untidy state of affairs now exists in this matter. The Commissioner of Lands has made two offers of estate in the same piece of land parcel 191-001-195. To the plaintiffs, Oceanic Industries (SI), the Commissioner offered the whole parcel 191-001-195 and the plaintiffs say they have accepted the offer and made the necessary payments required by the Commissioner. To the Defendant, the Commissioner has, recently on 1 August 1996, made offer of fixed term estate over part of 191-001-195 being subdivision parcel No.191-001-229 in Honiara. The Commissioner has not, at least the Court has not been informed, cancelled his first offer of the whole to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, are said to intend legal proceedings to stop the Commissioner proceeding with the second offer. The position is so far, that the plaintiffs and the defendant are not yet registered owners of estates over the land in question. They have offers, and therefore high expectation. It would have been much easier for the court if the Commissioner had taken action which is conclusive either in favour of the plaintiffs or in favour of the defendant. The application is refused. The injunction is to continue, but will lapse or be discharged upon the Commissioner having registered the interest of either party, except that the injunction will not be regarded as having elapsed over the remainder of 191-001-195 if the Commissioner registers interest of the defendant only in the subdivision of 191-001-229. This untidy situation subsists because of the lack of decisiveness on the part of the Commissioner, the court considers that parties bear their own costs relating to today's application. This ruling does not stop Commissioner proceeding to register in favour of either party he considers fit; it is not a ruling to determine who the Commissioner should allocate the land (interest in the land) to. That is not the issue before the court now, and is not the responsibility of the court unless it has been done unlawfully.

="3">Dated this Monday the 16th day of September 1996.

Sam Lungole-Awich
Judge

>