Manukau Investment Ltd v Central Malaita Co-operative Society Ltd [2009] SBHC 37; HCSI-CC 428 of 2008 (31 July 2009)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction

Civil Case No. 428 of 2008

BETWEEN:

MANUKAU INVESTMENT LIMITED
Claimant

AND:

CENTRAL MALAITA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
1st Defendant

AND:

ALAN MATA
2nd Defendant

AND:

COMMODITIES EXPORT MARKETING AUTHORITY –
(Otherwise known as THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COPRA BOARD)
3rd Defendant

Date of Hearing: 24 July 2009
Date of Decision: 31 July 2009

Mr Lavery for Claimant (Applicant)
Mr Tigulu for First and Second Defendants
Mr Woods for Third Defendant

REASONS FOR ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FIRST AND SECOND DEFENDANTS

Cameron PJ:

1. On 24 July 2009 I entered summary judgment for the Claimant against the first and second defendants. I now briefly record the reasons.

2. It is clear from the sworn statements filed that on 31 March 2008 a contract was concluded under which the claimant purchased the fixed-term estate of a property (which included a commercial building) from the third defendant. The purchase price of SBD650,000 was paid, and the transfer has been lodged with the Registrar of Lands and awaits registration.

3. In their statement of defence, the first and second defendants allege that prior to the sale to the claimant, the third defendant had agreed to sell the property to them, and that a deposit was paid accordingly. Accordingly, they contend that the sale to the claimant was ineffective, and have refused to vacate the property.

4. However, there were no sworn statements filed by or on behalf of the first and second defendants supporting these assertions. As to the deposit, from a letter dated 8 May 2006 annexed to a bundle of exhibits filed on behalf of the claimant, it would appear that a sum of $20,000 was at that time paid to the third defendant but not by either of the first or second defendants. Further, in its statement of defence, the third defendant denies any sale to the first or second defendants, and admits it has sold the property to the claimant.

5. Mr Tigulu appeared at the hearing on behalf of the first and second defendants. He advised the Court that his instructions from his clients were to abide the decision of the Court, and did not raise any further arguments.

6. I am satisfied from the material filed that the third defendant was entitled to and in fact did validly sell the land and buildings to the claimant in March 2008. Equally, I am satisfied that there is no arguable defence to the claim.

7. In these circumstances I am satisfied that summary judgment should properly be given to the claimant, and have made the appropriate orders accordingly. All other claims have been adjourned sine die.

BY THE COURT