Totorea v Taiarata Integrated Forest Development Company Ltd [2000] SBHC 44; HC-CC 204 of 2000 (7 November 2000)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 204 of 2000

JOE RODY TOTOREA, ROEROE, & GEORGE AHUKENI

V

TAIARATA INTERGRATED FOREST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED AND BULECAN INTEGRATED WOOD INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED

High Court of Solomon Islands
(F.O. KABUI), J)

Hearing: 7th November 2000
Ruling: 7th November 2000

Mrs M. Samuel for Plaintiffs
Mr. A. Nori for Defendants

RULING

(Kabui, J): The Plaintiffs came to the Court by filing a Writ of Summons and a Statement of Claim on 21^st October 2000 against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs Claim is based upon trespass and damage in respect of a customary land in West Are Are on Malaita. In my earlier ruling on 8^th September 2000, I dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for an interim injunctive order on the ground that the Plaintiffs had not satisfied me that they were the true owners in custom of the land in dispute. In fact, the land in dispute had been through the Chiefs’ forum and the indication at that time was that the dispute was intended to be put to the Malaita Local Court for determination.

In a Notice of Motion filed this morning the Plaintiffs are seeking the following orders -

1. That the sum of SI$2,000.00 be withdrawn from the money which are payable for rental of the log pond for purposes of funding the Malaita Local Court hearing on the issue of ownership over the land which is currently in issue;
   
2. That this matter be adjourned generally pending the Malaita Local Court determination on the issue of ownership over the land;
   
3. Costs to be costs in the cause.
   

The basis for requesting the sum of $2,000.00 to be released from the trust funds held in the joint account held by the parties’ Solicitors is set out in Mr. Totorea’s affidavit sworn and filed this morning in Court. I set out below the content of Mr. Totorea’s affidavit –

1. I am one of the Plaintiffs in the above proceedings;
   
2. Pursuant to the recent Chieves determination on the ownership of Po’otori Land, the issue was referred to the Malaita Local Court for further determination by our tribe;
   
3. Following the said referral, the Malaita Local Court had listed the matter for hearing on two occasions. The recent listing was on the 30^th October, 2000. On the said date, we were present, but the matter did not proceed as listed because of lack of funding by the Government. The matter was adjourned further as a result;
4. It is my view that as the rental proceeds that were supposed to have been paid into a joint trust account were in relation to the land in issue, part of it should be withdrawn to cover the Malaita Local Court costs;
   
5. While at Auki, I was informed by the Local Court Clerk that the approximate costs would be about SI$2,000.00;
   
6. As the issue of ownership is yet to be finalised, I request this Honourable Court to have this matter adjourned generally, pending the Malaita Local Court determination on that issue;
   
7. I also seek an order of this Court that the amount of SI$2000.00 be withdrawn and allocated to fund the next Malaita Local Court sitting on the issue of ownership over the Po’otori Land.
   

Clearly, the Plaintiffs are seeking funds to enable the Malaita Local Court to hear and determine their claim of ownership. The Malaita Local Court Clerk has not filed any affidavit evidence setting out the break-down of the costs but I suppose such cost would include the allowances for the justices, cost of transport, accommodation and food etc. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Government has severe cash-flow problem at this time affecting all sectors of the Government. Functioning of the Local Courts is a matter for the Government and not private individuals. Funding of the Local Court hearing by the disputing parties creates a perception of a private Court and questions the independence of the Local Court involved. The fact however is that the Government has no money and the Plaintiffs have a case pending in the High Court awaiting a hearing and ruling by the Malaita Local Court. Their cause is being frustrated by the Government’s inability to fund the Malaita Local Court. This is a serious matter of great concern. The Plaintiffs obviously have no other choice but to fund the hearing of their dispute. I have already granted the orders asked for by the Plaintiffs in their Notice of Motion in Court with the condition that the Plaintiffs’ sum of SI$2000.00 be repaid by the Government of course upon receipts to be provided by the Plaintiffs. Mr. Nori, Counsel for the Defendants, did not object to my imposing of this condition. This written ruling is for the purpose of confirming the orders that I have made.

F.O. Kabui
Judge