Ugra v Isabel Local Court [2012] SBHC 56; HCSI-CC 405 of 2011 (16 July 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Chetwynd J)

Civil Claim No. 405 of 2011

BETWEEN

JAMES UGRA
(Representing the Vihuvunagi Tribe)
Claimant

And

ISABEL LOCAL COURT
First Defendant

And

CLEMENT ROJUMANA
Second Defendant

And

JEREMIAH HOVE (Deceased)
Third Defendant

And

VARIAN LENI LONAMEI
Fourth Defendant

And

ALFRED BUG ORO
Fifth Defendant

Mr Watts for the Claimant
Mr D Hou for the Second Defendant
Mr Tigulu for the Fourth Defendant
Ms Bird for the Fifth Defendant
No appearance for the First Defendant

Date of Hearing: 25th June 2012

Date of Judgment: 16th July 2012

Ruling following Chapter 15 conference

1. It is very difficult to understand what the claim is all about. Although the "Claim for Judicial Review" has been read and re-read there is considerable confusion as to what it is the Claimant wants. In addition the Claimant seeks to sue a person who has died. It is difficult to see how the "Third Defendant", the late Jeremiah Hove, can still be a representative of one of the Tribes involved in this case. There is no explanation in law or in custom of how that can be. The only way forward is to look at the wording of the "Claim". It appears at paragraph 17 of the Statement of Case (which was filed as part of the Claim on 4th October 2011).

2. Paragraph 17 reads "A declaration that the action of the First Defendant (Isabel Local Court) breaches the provisions of section 12 of the Local Courts Act (Cap.19) and is Ultra Vires and therefore null and void". At paragraph 18 the Claim reads, "For leave to be grant (sic) a quashing order that the proceeding of the first defendant on 5th May 2011 be removed into the High Court for purpose of being quashed for the reason detail (sic) in the sworn statement of the claimant". Paragraph 19 reads, "For consequential orders that the 11/10/1998 ruling of the Hovikoilo House of chiefs (sic) is non-appealable, or that any appeal against the same is time barred".

3. The first task is to look at the proceedings complained about. A copy of the record is attached to the Claimants sworn statement filed 4th October 2011 and marked as exhibit BU10. What is immediately apparent is the Claimant was not a party to Land Case No. 2 of 2001. The Plaintiffs were named as Clement Rojumana and the late Mr Hove. The Defendants are named as Loni Lonamei and Alfred Bughoro. In that regard the Claimant cannot challenge any of the findings of the Local Court which do not relate to him. However, the Local Court did make an order:

"The pending land case no. 01 of 2002 (Buala land Hydro) between James Ugra and Benson Vasula be dismissed and parties to be advised accordingly".

The record is not 100% clear but there is no indication that the Claimant or any representative of the Vihuvunagi tribe appeared before the justices. There is a passing reference to "supplementary issues raised by other parties" but whether this is a reference to parties in No 1 of 2002 or other parties in No 2 of 2001 is not clear. In that regard it is probably correct to say the Isabel Local Court was wrong to make that order.

4. It is perfectly clear why the justices adopted that stance, they were trying to remove all impediments to a new panel of chiefs hearing the dispute about the Buala hydro scheme land. The case they were dealing with involved the land and they believed land case 1 of 2002 did as well although it concerned other parties. They could certainly have summoned the parties in No. 1 of 2002 and then dealt with it in a similar fashion to No.2 of 2001, they could possible even amalgamate or consolidate the two cases and make the order they did. What they could not do is dismiss the case without giving the parties the opportunity of being heard.

5. That raises another question. Who were the parties in No. 1 of 2002? The Second Defendant has introduced evidence from one Benson Vasula. He filed a sworn statement on 21st November 2011. Attached to it is a copy letter from the Local Courts Officer at Central Magistrates' Court. Attached in turn to the letter was a copy of an excerpt from the Isabel Local Court Register. It shows case No.1 of 2002 involved John Ugura and Hugo Diamana as plaintiffs and Michael Doko and Levi Likotto as defendants. It is said to involve Talise (or possible Tarise) land on San George.

6. Normally this court would have no hesitation in saying to a party disgruntled with a decision of the Local Court, "Appeal to the CLAC". Unfortunately that cannot happen in this case. The justices made their decision in No. 2 of 2001. The Claimant in this case was not a party in that case. He would have found it difficult to appeal the decision. However, the fundamental problem which the Claimant in this case has to overcome is that he was not a party in the dismissed case, No 1 of 2002, either. He has not produced one shred of evidence to counter the sworn statement of Benson Vasula nor is the correct identity of the parties in the case addressed in submissions. Whomever has the right to challenge the decision to dismiss, "the pending land case No.1 of 2001" it is not, on the evidence before the court, the Claimant.

7. As for the second part of claim for relief, the order sought is really somewhat preposterous. Strictly speaking, a referral of a chiefs' decision to the Local Court is not an appeal. For one thing, the Chiefs' panels are not courts of record. For another, the 1985 amendment which gave rise to section 12 of the Local Courts Act in its present form, only talks about the lack of a wholly acceptable chiefs' decision (or the lack of any further traditional means of resolving the dispute) being a bar to proceedings in the Local Court. There is no time limit set out in the Local Courts Act. The only time limit is a reference to a three month period within which an accepted settlement form must be lodged. In the circumstances it is impossible to grant the Claimant the relief he seeks.

8. The claim becomes even more preposterous when another High Court case is considered. Sometime in 2006 (probably 13th January) the Claimant lodged a case in the High Court. It was Civil case 5 of 2006. It was eventually dealt with by His Lordship the Chief Justice. He gave his judgment in February 2007. The parties in the 2006 case were the Claimant, the Second and Fifth Defendants (named as First Defendants), Lionel Longa and Roger Collins Manehage, the Maringe House of Chiefs and the Commissioner of Lands. One of the reliefs sought was "For consequential orders that the 11/10/1998 Hovikoilo House of Chiefs is non-appealable, or that any appeal against the same is time barred". In other words exactly what is asked for in this case. The Chief Justice dealt with that point:

"The case of James Ugra v. Benson Vasula

This was a land dispute case between Ugra and Benson Vasula ("Vasula") heard by the West Maringe Chiefs on 5th October 1998 in Buala Village. The lands disputed were described as Tuturia, Letasi, Seu and Momorotu from the highland to the coast. It appears a dispute arose when Vasula attempted to build a CRC Church building on a hill which was disputed. The Chiefs found in favour of Ugra and ordered the church building to stop.

Is the Chief's decision in James Ugra v. Benson Vasula binding on others?

The decision in this case is a land dispute case between two parties, Ugra and Vasula. It binds no one except the two of them and their immediate relatives. Decisions in land disputes are usually referred to as decisions inter partes; they are not decisions in rem (as against the rest of the world). It is wrong therefore for Ugra to seek to rely on this decision as binding anyone else other than Vasula and his family. "

Although His Lordship talks of the West Maringe Chiefs and gives a date of 5th October 1998 there is absolutely no doubt this is the same decision the Claimant calls the Hovikoilo House of Chiefs determination of 11/10/1998. That is clear from the copy of that determination he exhibits to his sworn statement in this case as annexure JU4. The Chief Justice dismissed the claim in Civil case 5 of 2006 on the basis it did not show any reasonable cause of action.

9. I remind myself this is a conference called pursuant to Rule 15.3.16 [1]. What is required of the judge in such conferences is set out in Rule 15.3.18. It says the court will not hear the claim unless it is satisfied that the Claimant has an arguable case. There are other considerations in the Rule but we do not even get to them. It is clear the Claimant does not have an arguable case. I must, in accordance with Rule 15.3.20 decline to hear the case and strike it out.

10. That is the order I make. The claim is struck out. The Claimant shall pay the defendants costs, such costs to be assessed on a standard basis if not agreed.

11. As an aside I should comment the Claimant is in grave danger of being labelled as a vexatious litigant. It may be better for him and his tribe to concentrate on what is important, the hydro scheme. There is no information as to whether the Magistrate's decision on the last (the third) acquisition appeal has been carried into effect. As His Lordship the Chief Justice remarked in Civil case 5 of 2006, even the new Chiefs hearing will not resolve the acquisition proceedings and a fourth set of them will be needed. The Claimant is best advised to channel his energies into that area rather than launch fruitless litigation which does not advance the dispute in any way.

Chetwynd J

---

^[1] Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007