PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Solomon Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Solomon Islands >> 1998 >> [1998] SBHC 1

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Filakwasi v Ghui [1998] SBHC 1; HC-LAC 001 of 1997 (6 January 1998)

HIURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Land Appeal Case No. 1 of 1997

class="Mso="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> ELISON FILAKWASI & JOp; JOHN OFA
(Spokesmen on behalf of Bethuel Palmer-Deceased)

v

CONILUS GHUI

p class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> High Court of Solomon Islands
Before: Lungole-Awich, J
Land Appeal Case No. 1 of 1997

Hearing: 9 October
Judgment: 6 January 1998

Counsel: A Nor the appellants;
C Solosaia for the respondent

JUDGMENT

(LUNGOLE-AWICH, J): The Grounds of Appeal. In this appeal against the judgment of Malaita Customary Land Appeal Court, dated 25.10.1996, the appellants, Elison Filakwasi and Bethuel Palmer, filed notice of appeal which stated 13 grounds. In addition they stated 15 points they described as, "deceit and lying points," 4 as, "eye witnesses points," 4 others as, ”trespass points" and finally 3 as, "questions." At the hearing, learned counsel Mr. A Nori for the appellants abandoned all but one ground. That ground was numbered 3 in the notice of appeal dated 7.1.1997, drawned by counsel after appellants had filed the lengthy one. The sole ground pursued is this:

"3. The court erred in making a finding without any supporting evidence at all, in particular when it found as follows:-

‘It must be stressed that an owner oner of a land is free to dispose off [sic] and deal with his properties. If he desires to give a portion of the land to a daughter or any female member of his line, then that is his will.'

The said finding was arrived at without any any evidence being adduced or produced in support of it."

The respondent , Conilius Ghui, representing hibe, was the plaintiff in in the Local Court and the appellants were the defendants. The plaintiff/respondent won the case in the Local Court, as well as on appeal when the defendants/appellants appealed to the Malaita Customary Land Appeal Court. The plaintiff/respondent claimed that he represented their tribe, the descendants of Arikao and Taifau who discovered and settled on the land, Kulakwai/Lumarau land, the subject of claim. The defendants/appellant also claimed the same land on the same basis, that their own ancestor, Kwailalamua, discovered and settled the land. Both parties in fact lived on or used part of the land by the time claim was taken to court. They had lived peacefully until logging business came and money to be shared among owners of land was made available.

It would appear that the point sought to be made by the sole sole remaining ground is that the appellants’ tribes did not acquire the land by gift to their female ancestor, which gift was said to have been made by the respondent’s ancestors, there was no evidence of that, and therefore the CLAC erred in not accepting the appellants’ testimony about their ancestor discovering and settling the land before the ancestors of the respondent.

<

Jurisdiction

<

The jurisdiction of the High Court in appeal cases concerning cing customary land is limited to questions of, (1) error in point of law excluding point of customary law and (2) failure to comply with procedural requirement of written law. See sections 231 B and 232 of Land and Titles Act, Cap. 93.

Mr. Nori argued that it was an error in law, other than cusn customary law, for the CLAC to have made on page 4, the statement that an owner of land (customary land in the area of this dispute) was free to make gift of land to female. He pointed out that the error was that it was a statement of customary law, and so had to be proved by evidence, there was no such evidence. He cited the author of Cross on Evidence at page 861 in support. He distinguished customary law from facts that are common knowledge and so courts could take judicial notice of, he cited the case of Commonwealth Shipping Ltd -v- Pond 0 Services [1923] ACC 191.

Determination

Firstly it is my view that there was such evidence. Learned counselunsel Mr. Solosiae pointed out that in his submission. Respondent's last 4 witnesses, numbered 3,4,5 and 6 testified that they inherited portions of the land they lived on, part of the land in dispute, from their female ancestors who had been given the portions. Secondly, even if Mr. Nori were right that there had been no evidence about the statement of customary law made by the CLAC, he would have difficulty pursuing that point further because nowhere in the records of the Local Court or of CLAC did the respondent say that gift of the land was made to female ancestor of the appellants and that is how the appellants claim ownership. The oral story repeated on page 3 of the record of the proceedings of the Local Court is the nearest to that impression, but does not go so far as to state that the appellants were descendants of female from the tribe of the respondent. In fact the respondent categorically denied it, on page 4. The respondent's case is not that the appellants inherited from female ancestor. The CLAC simply answered the appeal point No. 11 which raised the question as to whether customary land can be given to female descendants, without it considering whether the appeal point was relevant or material at all in the judgment of the Local Court. Furthermore, the CLAC itself did not use that point of customary law it stated, in resolving the appeal in favour of the respondent. The statement was not determinant in the CIAC reaching the decision it made in the judgment appealed against.

It is important to say here that the case was not decided by resolving the e question of gift. It was decided in the Local Court mainly on the strength of the evidence seen during survey and as to whether or not that evidence supported testimonies of parties about burial sites and sites for worshipping. The CLAC dealt with that at length on pages 2 and 3 of its judgment and also decided the appeal on those items of evidence. In dealing with those important points of the case, both the Local Court and the CLAC did not err in a point of law (other than a point of customary law) or in written law of procedure. There is no reason for the High Court to intervene. The appeal to the High Court is dismissed. The judgment of the Malaita Customary Land Appeal Court dated 25.10.1996 and of the Local Court dated 10.5.1993 remain valid.

Costs of this appeal are award the respondent, who was thas the plaintiff in the Local Court.

Dated this 6th January 1998

Sam Lungole-Aole-Awich
JUDGE


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1998/1.html