Selea v Gaobata Resource Development Association [2005] SBHC 82; HCSI-CC 225 of 2005 (13 July 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction

CC No. 225 of 2005

BETWEEN:

JOHN SELEA
(Representing the Gaobata House of Chiefs)
Paintiff

AND:

GAOBATA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
Defendant

Before the Honourable Justice Brown, sitting at Honiara on the 13th day of July 2005.

REASONS and ORDERS OF THE COURT

Originating summons seeking declaration of rights in relation to a Memorandum of Understanding affecting the Guadalcanal Plains landowners and New Britain Oil Palm Limited.

Whereas the plaintiff has issued originating process in this court seeking a declaration as to whether or not the Association has been incorporated in compliance with the Charitable Trusts Act (cap. 55) and other declarations questioning the standing of the defendant to represent particular landowners by virtue of not being lawfully incorporated and thus consequently invalidating the Memorandum of Agreement between the defendant, the Solomon Islands Government, the Guadalcanal Executive and the New Britain Palm Oil Limited so as to exclude the landowner groups with allegiance to the Gaobata House of Chiefs from the MOU;

And further the plaintiff seeks orders that the defendant be "etrained from further propagating their assumed legitimacy and right to represent the landowning groups who are represented by the GHC (sic)"and other associated orders;

And Whereas there has been no appearance after call, by or on behalf of the said defendant although an affidavit of service has been filed deposing to the fact the summons was served on one John Seketala;

And Further Upon Hearing Mr. B. Titiulu, a lawyer seeking to represent an interested party, the Guadalcanal Plains Resource Development Association who informed the court that there was no existing association by name of the defendant and who sought leave to argue the appropriateness of the proceedings before the court;

Upon hearing Mr. Preslie Watts for the Plaintiff who sought leave to amend such proceedings;

Whereupon the Court, being neither satisfied as to the correct designation of the defendant sought to be made the subject of declaratory orders nor on the face of the originating summons that declaratory orders (by their nature discretionary), are appropriate when the summons would appear at first instance to be related to a private law claim involving the constitution of a purported association and the parties rights and obligations there under (and as such may be seen to be outside the province of this court) or that the claim for relief relates to an argument over or an interest in customary land (which again takes the proceedings outside the jurisdiction of the High Court having regard to the decision in the Court of Appeal case of Gandly Simbe); in either event, a statement of claim deposing facts on which the plaintiff would seek to rely would be appropriate in accordance with the practice and procedure of the court thus allowing a defendant to answer such claim;

And Whereas the court was not minded to allow this process to stand in these circumstances;

This Court Ordered:

The originating summons is permanently stayed;

There be no order as to costs.

THE COURT