Malaita Development Authority v Ganifiri [2001] SBHC 18; HC-CC 217 of 2000 (9 April 2001)

HOURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No.217 of 2000

MALAITA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

v

MARILYN GANIFIRVID GANIFIRI, COMMISSIONER OF LAND AND REGISTRAR OF TITLES

High Court of Solomon Islbr> Before: .F. O. Kabui, J
Civil Case No. 217 of 2000

class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Hearing: 9^th April 2001
Judgment: 9^th April 2001

class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> A. Radclyffe for the Plaintiff

J. Keniapisia for the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants

J. Hauirae for the 1^st Defendant

RULING

(Kabui, >): By Summons filed on 13^th March, 2001, 001, the Plaintiff seeks the following orders-

1. &nbbsp;& &nsp; &nsp; lpan="EN-GB"N-GB" style="font-size: 11.0pt">That the Second Defendant answer the Plaintiff’s interrogatorithin s d in lt the second Defendant’dant’s defs defence be struck out.

> <

2. & That tirdTh DefenDefendant make full discovery within 7 days of documents relating to the attempted registration of a grant inent frcel 71-00 in or abpril 1996 in f in favouravour of t of the Plhe Plaintiaintiff.

3. & p;&nbsp&nbsp &nbp; Surther othr other ordr orders as the Court thinks fit.

At the ng of this Summons this morning, the Plaintiff decided not not to proceed with the application for order 1 above on the ground that it had been fully satisfied by the 2^nd Defendant. The Plaintiff however maintained its position as regards the need for the Court to make the order asked for in 2 above. Order 2 speaks for itself. It requires discovery within 7 days of documents relating to the attempted registration of a grant instrument for Parcel No. 171-001-319 in or about April, 1996 in favour of the Plaintiff. In support of the application, Counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Radclyffe, produced documents 13 and 23 in part 1 of schedule 1 in an affidavit filed on 12^th January, 2000 by the Solicitor for the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants. Documents 13 is a letter written by one George A. Hoatamauri on behalf of the Commissioner of Lands to the Plaintiff’s Provincial Secretary, D.R. Houkari. In that letter, it says, Lot 450 is in fact Parcel No. 171-001-319. Document 23 is a Grant Instrument for Parcel No. 171-001-319 in favour of the Plaintiff. Whereas according to the affidavit filed by Irene Vaukei, the Registrar-General, on 6^th April, 2001, Parcel No. 171-001-319 was granted to Valbros Limited on 3^rd November, 1995. In support of the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants, their Counsel, Mr. Keniapisia, argued that there was no dispute that Lot 450 was in fact Parcel No. 171-001-343 whilst Lot 420 was Parcel No. 171-001-319, none of which had anything to do with the Plaintiff’s application. On this basis, he argued that documents relating to these Parcel Numbers would have never been in the possession of the 3^rd Defendant for the purpose of the Plaintiff’s Summons or even if they were, they were not relevant documents for the Plaintiff’s purposes.

In my view, there must have been otocuments relating to the non-registration of Parcel No. . 171-001-319 in favour of the Plaintiff. For example, why did the Grant Instrument lodged for registration on 3^rd April, 1996 not registered? The reasons may well have been contained in letters, if any, that intervened after the Grant Instrument had been executed and ready for registration. These would be relevant evidence on the point interested in by the Plaintiff. In the result I reject the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendant’s argument and I would grant the Plaintiffs application. I make the order sought accordingly.

F. O. Kabui

Judge