Taovia v Success Ltd [1998] SBHC 109; HCSI-CC 126 of 1996 (21 August 1998)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 126 of 1996

MAURICIALE TAOVIA

-v-

SUCCESS LIMITED

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.)
Civil Case No. 126 of 1996

Hearing: 18 August 1998
Judgment: 21 August 1998

Andrew Radclyffe for Plaintiff
John Wasiraro for Defendant

MURIA CJ: This is a claim by the plaintiff for damages for trespass onto his land by the defendant. Liability had been admitted and the question for the Court to determine is now one of the amount of damages to be paid to the plaintiff who had earlier refused an offer of out-of Court settlement of $17,000.00.

The land in question is located at Kodovele, North West Guadalcanal and is described as Parcel No. 190-009-31, Lot 50, in the Tanasali Settlement Area. It was registered in the joint names of Antonio Manehunu, Luke Matanidaki and the plaintiff. Both Manehunu and Matanidaki had died already leaving the land now in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant carried out logging activities in and around the area concerned. It had used the seafront of Kodovele to store logs. There are a number of plots of land in the area concerned, one of which is Lot 50. The others are Lots 17 and 18. Lot 90 is further to the west of Lot 17.

The defendant agreed that it stock- piled logs for shipment in the area between the beach and the road in Lot 17 and Lot 90 which is the area immediately to the west of Lot 17. The defendant agreed, however, that a small amount of logs were stored inside the plaintiff’s Lot 50. It is not known how many logs were stored in the plaintiff’s land. The defendant revealed that it carried out five (5) shipments of the logs stored in the area.

As this matter only concerns the assessment of damages, it is first of all necessary to take note of the principles to be considered in arriving at an amount that is fair taking into account the circumstances of both parties. Mr. Radclyffe referred to the case of C.P. Homes Limited and Solomon Tropical Products Limited -v- Zhong Xing Investment (SI) Limited, Civ. App. 5 of 1997 (CA). The Court of Appeal there adopted the “user principle” as a guide in assessing damages in a trespass to land case. C.P. Homes Limited was a case of appellants using the respondent’s land for storing machinery. There was no injury to the land nor was there any loss of value of the land to the respondent. However the Court pointed out that such matters cannot excuse the appellants from liability to pay for their use of the property. The principle being that a trespasser must not be allowed to make use of another person’s land without compensation for such use. See also the case of Whitwham -v- Westminister brymbo Coal and Coke Co. [1896] UKLawRpCh 62; [1896] 1 Ch. 894 referred to in the C.P. Homes Limited case.

In this case the defendant conceded that it stored some of its logs in the plaintiff’s land without his permission. There is no evidence that the land had lost its value due to the defendant’s use of it nor is there any evidence of injury to the land as a result. However the fact is that the defendant had used the land to store its logs or more correctly part of its piles of logs on the plaintiff’s land without his permission. Applying the principle stated earlier, the defendant must pay for the use it had of the plaintiff’s land for storing logs during the years 1995 and 1996 as stated in the Statement of Claim. There were mentions of logs stored on the Plaintiff’s land in 1997 by his two witnesses but I am not satisfied that the logs seen by the two witnesses in 1997 were on the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff brought the action on 1 May, 1996 before which time he said that the defendant made two shipments of logs from his land and after the case was opened he saw a further three shipments. It is not clear as to when those further three shipments were made but I am not satisfied that they were made in 1997. Nevertheless I accept, and it is not disputed by the defendant, that there were five shipments of logs altogether. Of course, the shipments were of logs stored in the plaintiff’s land as well as in the adjoining land.

Mr. Radclyffe sought to argue that the basis for calculating the amount of damages to be paid to the plaintiff should be on the number of shipments of logs made by the defendant. To this effect, Counsel suggested that a figure of $5,000.00 per shipment would not be unreasonable. Mr. Wasiraro, on the other hand, argued that the amount of damages to be paid to the plaintiff should be based on the demand on the value of the plaintiff’s land as well as on the period during which the defendant used the land. In this regard, Counsel suggested that a figure of $1,000.00 per month would be a reasonable basis for calculating the amount due to the plaintiff.

The authorities referred to by Mr. Radclyffe clearly support the contention that the defendant must pay for the use of the plaintiff’s land and that such payment must be based on a reasonable rent for the use of the property. This is so because the defendant only used the plaintiff’s land to store some of the logs. There is no evidence, however, adduced by the plaintiff as to the value of his land or what he would have fetched, if he had let the property out. In such a situation, CP Homes Limited states that the reasonable rent should be based on the “ordinary letting value” of the property. This is what I feel sensible to do also in this case.

What rental valuation a property enjoyed would also depend on the location of the particular property. In C.P. Homes Limited, the property concerned was, I believe, in Honiara where the value of land is higher than those outside especially in the rural areas such as at kodovele. The lower rental value placed on the land in C.P. Homes Limited was $1,000 per month. A lower rental value for a registered land in the outback at Kodovele would undoubtedly fetch less than that one would obtain for a land in Honiara.

It is difficult in the present case to put a figure on what “the ordinary letting value” on the plaintiff’s property in this case in the absence of any guide. No assistance has been given by the plaintiff at all of the value of his property or what he would have let it out for. Doing the best I can in the circumstances, bearing in mind that it would be very much a matter of discretion, I feel that a fair amount of what the ordinary letting value of the plaintiff’s property in this case would be $500.00 per month. The lower rental value of the plaintiff’s property would be lower than $500.00 but I am prepared to leave it at $500.00 as the amount appropriate in the circumstances as the rental value of the plaintiff’s property. This I feel is very generous.

The defendant used the plaintiff’s land for two years and based on the letting value of $500.00 per month, the plaintiff should be able to receive $12,000.00. To give the plaintiff an award based on an amount of $5,000.00 per shipment as suggested which would obtain him $25,000.00 would not be correct on the authorities as it would confer a profit on the defendant for his grievance and this is not the purpose of compensatory damages as pointed out in C. P. Homes Limited.

In the circumstances there will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,000.00 plus costs. The judgment will attract 5% interest until paid in full.

Order accordingly.

(Sir John Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE