Onika v Sevesi [2007] SBHC 57; HCSI-CC 446 of 2004 (2 March 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 446 of 2004

JOSEPH ONIKA AND VICTORIA ONIKA

v

JIM SEVESI, ANDREW SOGO,
KANIKO PATRICIA AND SAMO BASOWA

Date of Hearing: 2 Mach 2007
Date of Ruling: 2 March 2007

Mr. Andrew Radclyffe for the Plaintiffs
1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants In person

RULING on court reference to mediation

REASONS

Brown, J: Mr. Radclyffe very fairly has put his client’s case that relies on ownership by virtue of registration under the Land and Titles Act. Mr. Radclyffe acknowledges that the land has been the subject of dispute nevertheless since this application was filed and served and even preceding that time.

Mr. Sevesi who has spoken on all the defendants’ part, has sought to explain to me why there has been such disputation.

It appears that the land has been the subject of occupation for some 30 years and in that time those occupiers treated it as their own despite objection from landowners in the upper Matanikau. Nevertheless these occupiers remained to the knowledge of the Commissioner of Lands and these upper Matanikau landowners.

Such a length of time obviously gave the Commission pause for it appears these occupiers had reason to believe the Government (in the Land’s Commissioner for he is the responsible authority) and the Honiara Town Council were contemplating some scheme for relocation of the occupiers. Mr. Sevesi says he refused urging to became the registered owner for he was aware of the views against by the upper Matanikau landowners.

Nevertheless the Commissioner has seen fit to grant a fixed term estate to the plaintiffs in circumstances which Mr. Sevesi says were dubious. I am not concerned so much about that for there is no evidence that the regulatory process was not carried out in accordance with law, especially when Mr. Sevesi was aware of the possibility of sale.

What does concern me, however, is that for some long period of time when in other jurisdictions, possessory title may accrue, the Commissioner has proceeded in the way that has effectively prevented these occupiers from redress for threatened dispossession of this originally swampy parcel of land. If there is any truth in the suggestion that a possibility had been raised with the occupiers for alternate residence, then this clearly is a matter which has precluded or at lest delayed these occupiers from taking legal steps to have their long period of occupancy recognized as an interest in the estate. They have lost that interest by virtue of their inaction and the acts of the Commission who is not here today to answer Mr. Sevesi’s assertions.

It is plain the plaintiff may rely on the indefeasible title accorded him by the Land and Titles Act. It is equally plain that the occupiers feel strongly aggrieved through the circumstances by which the plaintiff’s have came to be registered. That does not imply that the plaintiffs have done anything wrong, but it does reflect on an honest belief in these occupiers that they have been inequitably treated.

In the circumstances, since quite some time has passed, since the grant of title, more delay cannot act as a detriment to the plaintiff when, if what Mr. Sevesi says is the case, the land is not wholly available for development.

I propose to adjourn the plaintiff’s application to a later time.

I will appoint a mediator acceptable to the plaintiff and Mr. Sevesi and direct that the Commissioner of Lands be a party to such mediation with a view to seeking an amicable resolution whether by compensation, re-purchase, or other means to be explored by the mediator.

Mr. Radclyffe will furnish the names of appropriate persons to Mr. Sevesi within 21 days.

The costs of the mediation need be met by the parties equally so that moneys to meet the estimate cost must be paid into a trust account opened by Mr. Radclyffe for this purpose.

Were the mediator to recommend contribution by the Commissioner of Lands for such mediation this court will consider making an appropriate order. I suspend the making of these orders for 7 days where upon they will come into effect.

Liberty to apply on 2 days notice.

(On the application of the plaintiff when agreement to a suitable mediator or mediation itself could not be reached, I hereby direct this matter to be set down for trial of the issues).

THE COURT