Bareke Community Resources Development Company Ltd v Haro [2006] SBHC 51; HCSI-CC 457 of 2006 (12 August 2006)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 457 of 2006

BAREKE COMMUNITY RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED

–v-

WINCE HARO, DAVIS HARO, MAELYN ZAVO, ALADAISI LOVI, DENOSI WILLIE SIALO AND LEVAN GALIA

Date of Hearing: 12 August 2006

Date of Ruling: 12 August 2006

D Tigulu for the 1st & 2nd plaintiffs.
M. Pitakaka for the defendants

RULING

Inter-party summons for injunctive orders preventing the defendants interfering with the plaintiffs logging license.

BROWN J: This matter like most exhibits a difficult factual matrix for the parties invariably allege factual matters which go back many years.

In this case Mr Pitakaka points to what he says is the apparent fraud in the Marovo Local Court case report dated 6 August 1981 and as a consequence the Provincial Executives hearing under the FR & TU Act is vitiated for that the Executives finding was based on an error, which may be traced to the fraudulent report of the 1981 finding.

In fact the defendants did not contest the Timber Right hearing. They did not appear. They did not see fit to argue there, when the Forestry Act codifies the law in relation to the grant of logging licences and provides the machinery by which logging licenses are granted.

The Plaintiffs have followed the procedures required by the Forestry Act.

The defendants’ allegations about the fraud; the manner in which the 1981 findings are recorded are but that, allegations. The defendants have apparently also failed to appeal the determination of the Executive following the timber rights hearing.

As a consequence the plaintiff’s are entitled to the protection of S.10(2) of the Act, which affords licensees certainty in these costly commercial endeavours. I appreciate that the defendants have not pursued their aggrieved feelings over the 1981 decision to finality in the Local Cout at the time it would seem but that decision has been overtaken by events. For as I say, in the absence of any appeal from the determination of the Provincial Executive, the timber rights issue has been settled. (Civil Appeal No.2 of 2004-Steven Veno and Gordon Young (appellants) and Oliver Jino, Raevin Revo and Ors Unreported Court of Appeal decision of 12 April 2006). There are no "pending proceedings" before the Local Court affecting the subject land so that these defendants have not been shown to have standing to come to this court in these proceedings by the plaintiffs to overturn the timber rights agreement and license granted upon the basis of their assertions about a record of proceedings unrelated to "timber rights" so long ago.

The application for interim injunction orders is made out.

The plaintiff’s have shown a lawful right to such orders in respect of Delaka land. The argument raised by Mr Pitakaka over Pupusu does not affect the logging licence issued with respect to Delaka land.

I am not satisfied the plaintiff’s alternatives to pursue a claim for damages for interference perhaps would give the plaintiffs the relief which they seek to pursue by their lawful logging under this licence.

The balance of convenience does not arise for the defendants have not shown a right in law to interfere with the plaintiff’s licence.

I grant orders in terms of the summons filed 15 November 2006 para 1 & 2; such interim orders, effective to hearing or further order.

The plaintiff shall have its costs of the application.

THE COURT