Kabolo v Pala [2007] SBHC 32; HCSI-CC 322 of 2006 (17 May 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 322 of 2006

JOHN KABOLO, STEWARD EVO

v

LEMBU PALA, GIZO/KOLOMBANGARA LOCAL COURT, WESTERN CUSTOMARY LAND APPEAL COURT

Date of Hearing: 17th May 2007
Date of Ruling: 17th May 2007

Mr. S. Toi’otona for the Plaintiffs
Mr. D. Tigulu for the Defendant

RULING

REASONS – Accepted settlement of decision of Chief’s in Customary Land dispute – deemed to be the Local Courts decision and is subject to appeal to the Customary Land Appeal Court (CLAC)

Brown, J: Facts need not be restated. History of the dispute makes plain Steward Evo’s claim to the benefit of the decision of the Kololeana Council of Chiefs given on the 5th March 2000.

That customary land dispute decision cannot of course affect any registered land but any parcels of customary land which the Council of Chiefs deals with are affected.

At some time following that decision a document entitled "The Local Courts Act Customary Land Dispute Accepted Settlement" was prepared and it appears on the reverse page that the disputing parties, Lembu Pala and Steward Evo have signed evidencing their agreement.

That document also has 5 Chiefs names on the front page and 5 chiefs’ signatures on the reverse page. Despite Mr Tigulu’s criticism, the document is prima facie evidence of the matters with which it deals.

It would seem that the decision as traditional settlement was sent to the Principal Magistrate Gizo by letter (undated) by the Secretary Isaac Mamu to the Kololeana Council. The Customary land accepted settlement form clearly has the Magistrate Court stamp on the 1st page and the presumption must be (unless rebutted which has not happened today) that the accepted settlement form exhibit J K is in fact that document sent by the Secretary.

Later for some reason Steward Evo went to the Local Court and at Gizo on the 9 November 2005 the Court heard Mr Evo in the absence of Lebu Pala. The Court was satisfied that Lebu Pala had notice of the hearing.

The issue raised today is that the Court should not have proceeded in this fashion. As I said the fact that a party does not appear does not on that account alone, make the proceedings or the decision unsafe.

But when I read the decision or judgment, I am satisfied that the Local Court merely sought to record the Chiefs decision in terms of s.14 (3) of the Local Court Act. For by S.14 (3) the Local Court may record the Chiefs decision which will be deemed to be a decision of the Local Court for the purpose of any law.

So in effect the Local Court has recorded the accepted settlement of the Chiefs by recording the Council’s decision.

Under the Lands and Titles Act decisions of the Local Court are amendable to appeal to the CLAC. The decision of the CLAC shall be final and is not justifiable in any proceedings whatsoever (s.256 (4) Land and Titles Act). Since this judgment of the Local Court is by way of s.14 (3) appellable to the CLAC, it is not within the power of this Court to make orders interfering with or affecting that right of appeal.

Consequently I refuse to make the declarations or orders sought. If there has in fact been no appeal, then the decision of the Local Court must stand. I make no order as to cost.

The applications then are dismissed.

THE COURT