Bosoboe v Sogati [2006] SBHC 50; HCSI-CC 201 of 2006 (29 September 2006)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 201 of 2006

LLOYD BOSOBOE AND MASON ANDREW

-v-

ALICK SOGATI, ELLISON PITAKAJI AND
RIRIO CUSTOM CHIEFS COMMITTEE

Date of Hearing: 29 September 2006

Date of Ruling: 29 September 2006

M. Tagini for the respondent/plaintiff.
W. Tigulu for the applicant/1st defendant.
No appearance of the other defendants.

Application to strike pleadings as disclosing no cause of action.

Inter-party hearing

Brown, J: The 1st defendant Alick Sogati seeks to stop the plaintiffs from proceeding in the High Court By his notice the 1st defendant says, when the court looks at the statement of claim, there is no cause of action for the statement raises factual issues about customary land. Any argument about the effect of custom on land cannot be heard in the HC. This is the case that appears on the plaintiffs claim; argument about various chief’s decisions which, the plaintiff’s say originally favoured their tribe but which, through fraud were more recently affected by the adverse decision given by the Ririo Custom Chief’s Committee. The circumstances of that hearing and the alterations which the plaintiff’s say were made to the named parties leading to the hearing subsequently are cause for concern. These matters, Mr. Tagini says have been referred to the police.

The issue which Mr. Tagini argues should guide the court is that relating to pleadings and he says it is plain that this court can see from the statement or pleading that the defendants have altered a custom decision in circumstances which requires this court to interfere.

For this court has power to intervene when there are such obvious mistakes.

The principle however, which must guide this court in argument about customary land is that principle in Simbe’s case, a decision of the Court of Appeal which reaffirmed the fact that the HC cannot take to itself jurisdiction to hear argument about custom and land. That jurisdiction rests with the Chiefs.

I appreciate that Mr. Tagini says the Chiefs Authority has been circumvented in this instance by the actions of the defendants. But nevertheless that factual enquiry must first be brought before the Local Court. Section 12 of the Local Court Act makes plain that if objection is taken to the conduct or decision of the Chiefs, the appropriate review is through the Local Court. Section 16 provides for the nature of the law to be administered and that section states the court shall administer the law and custom prevailing in the area.

This court does not and cannot find the law and customs applying in the area. It has no jurisdiction. If the Local Court is satisfied that there has been perversion of the customs and law prevailing so that the Ririo Custom Chiefs Committee decisions does not truly reflect the law, then the Local Court can correct it.

Mr. Tagini is correct in his summation of the rules relating to pleadings. There is statutory provision which stops him from coming directly to the HC in theses circumstances. The HC certainly has power to review certain decisions of lower tribunals but not in the circumstances set out in this plaintiffs claim.

More recently in the Court of Appeal decision of Steven Veno [2006] SBCA 22 given 12 April 2006 the Appeal Court again reiterated the need to comply with the statutory regime. The recourse is through the Local Court.

The statement of claim cannot stand.

The summons must accordingly be, struck out. The plaintiff shall pay the 1st defendants costs.

THE COURT