Lalo v Lokoho [2003] SBHC 2; HC-CC 225 of 2002 (30 July 2003)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Case No. 225 of 2002

HUGO DIAMANA LALO
(representing himself and the descendants of Veko and Ugara tribes)

-V-

LEVI LOKOHO
(representing himself and the descendants of Doko and Talise Land holding Group)
M.S.L. IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY LIMITED
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(KABUI, J.)

Date of Hearing: 23^rd July 2003
Date of Ruling: 30^th July 2003

Mr B. Upwe for the Applicant
Mr C. Hapa for the Respondent

RULING

Kabui, J. This is an application by the 1^st Defendant filed on 26^th May 2003 seeking leave for the release of royalties in the A & A Legal Services Trust Account to the 1^st Defendant. The Applicant also applies for costs to be met by the Plaintiff.

The Background.

Certain royalty monies had been paid into the Trust Account of A & A Legal Services. The Isabel Local Court had determined on 16^th January 2003 that the parties in the dispute were one. The Plaintiff filed Notices of Discontinuance on 21^st March 2003 in accordance with the terms of the consent order filed on 3^rd March 2003. The application was the follow-up to the notices of discontinuance filed by the Plaintiff.

The decision of the Court.

There is I think a misunderstanding of the terms of the consent order by the former Solicitor for the Plaintiff. Paragraph 3 of the consent order clearly states that the notices of discontinuance were to do with the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants only and not to include the 1^st Defendant. The Plaintiff's action would still stand in relation to the 1^st Defendant. The letter dated 14^th April 2003, addressed to the Registrar of the High Court in response to his letter dated 24^th March 2003, querying the correctness of the Notice of Discontinuance filed on 21^st March 2003 by the former Solicitor for the Plaintiff, had overstated the correct position. The correct position is that the Plaintiff has not withdrawn his action against the 1^st Defendant. It is therefore rather premature to conclude that the action against the 1^st Defendant has been withdrawn. That is not the case. This is why the Plaintiff has instructed a new Solicitor to oppose this application. Whilst it is not disputed that the Isabel Local Court had determined the parties to be one, that decision is being appealed and cross-appealed by both parties. The outcome of the two appeals is being awaited. It is therefore premature to release the royalties to the 1^st Defendant whilst the dispute is awaiting the determination of the Isabel Customary Land Appeal Court. I will not grant the application being sought by the 1^st Defendant. The application is refused. The parties will meet their own costs.

F.O. Kabui
Judge