Ipo v Iro [2008] SBHC 64; HCSI-CC 268 of 2008 (29 September 2008)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 268 of 2008

RAYMOND IPO

V

PAUL IRO
1st Defendant

TIMOTHY AWA
2nd Defendant

PRESLEY HALUWATE
3rd Defendant

ANDREW SIMI
4th Defendant

JOHN STILL DORA
5th Defendant

JOHN ABA
6th Defendant (Trading as Top Timber Company)

JAMES KOO
7th Defendant (Trading as China United)

S.I. GLOBAL TIMBER LIMITED
8th Defendant

ELIJAH OWA
9th Defendant

WESTPAC BANK LIMITED
10th Defendant

Fuakona J.

Date of Hearing: 29 September 2008
Date of Ruling: 29 September 2008

Saramo for the Claimant for the Claimant
1st to 10th Defendant In Person

RULING
EX PARTE APPLICATION

Faukona, J.

This is an application for ex part orders. This application first came before me on 25th September for injunctive order to freeze 8th Defendant’s bank account with 10th Defendant. That application was not granted.

After redrafting of the new orders the applicant then filed a new application on 26th September based on the same grounds. This time that monies paid for sawn timber extracted from Customary Land known as Waluheiheilipasi and paid into 8th Defendant’s account be transferred to the Public Solicitor’s Trust Account No. 010714070021 with the Bank South Pacific.

This application is supported by the sworn statement of John Still Dora, and the fact the issue of ownership of the land has pending before the Malaita Local Court.

Upon observing the unaccepted settlement Form which the Applicant filed in the Central Magistrate Court, there is indication that no decision was made by the Chiefs. The Chiefs panel was objected by the parties and that was the end of the matter.

If the Chiefs intended to refer the matter to Malaita Local Court there has to be reason for that referral and has to be entered in the appropriate space provided for in the form. There was nothing in the current unaccepted settlement form in this case.

The case Toma v J. Osiramoa, Mr. Saramo refer to, is where a case is properly filed with the Local Court and that the case is actually pending. That should be a good reason for granting injunctive orders considering the question of land ownership in pending before the Local Court.

In this case the filing of the case with the Local Court was not done according to the Local Court Act S. 12. Where an attempt by the Chiefs to resolve the dispute is unsuccessful, and in doing so exhausted all possible avenues, then the Chiefs will refer the case to the Local Court and one of parties to pay a commencement fee. That has not been done. Mr. Saramo submitted that Applicant attempted to get the Chiefs to sit three times but could not. In such circumstances it was the responsibility of the Chiefs to refer the matter for the Local Court, and the decision they made must be reflected in unaccepted Settlement Form. In the absence of that there is no land case pending before the Malaita Local Court.

With that I there refuse to grant orders sought.

THE COURT