Williams v Amota [2013] SBHC 107; HCSI-CC 399 of 2007 (8 August 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 399 of 2007

BETWEEN:

SHIRELY WILLIAMS
Claimant

AND:

JEFFREY AMOTA
First Defendant

AND:

ROBERT AMOTA
Second Defendant

Date of Ruling: 8 August 2013

Mr. Keniapisia for Claimant
Mr. Tigulu for Defendants

RULING

1. This is an application by the First Defendant for the following orders: (1) that the judgment date 31 July 2008 be set aside. (2) That the enforcement order dated 19 July 2011 be stayed. (3) That First Defendant be granted leave to file a defence within 14 days. (4) That the First Defendant's costs be paid by Watts and Associates or Martin Hou Haurii personally. (5) Any other orders deem just by the court.
   
2. The Fixed Term Estate in Parcel Number 191-001-235 ("the land") was granted to the Claimant by the Commissioner of lands on 17 January 1998. The land is situated at Tasahe in Honiara. The Claimant left for Australia due to the ethnic tension. In September 2007, the Claimant visited the land and discovered that the First Defendant had constructed a building on the land. The Second Defendant also built a house on the land.
   
3. The Claimant filed a claim against the First and the Second Defendants on 26 October 2007, seeking relief against the Defendants.
   
4. The Defendants failed to file defence. As a consequence, the court entered default judgment against the Defendants on 31 July 2008. In that Judgment, the Defendants were ordered to: deliver possession of the land back to the Claimant; dismantle and remove their buildings and structures from the land; issued permanent restraining orders against the Defendants, their servants, agents and relatives from entering and remaining on the land; pay damages for trespass to be assessed if not agreed but limited to $50,000.00 and costs to be taxed if not agreed.
   
5. The Registrar of the High Court granted an enforcement order against the Defendants on 19 July 2011. The Defendants were served with the enforcement order 2011. There is evidence that only one building remains on the land. The house belongs to the Second Defendant.
   
6. The Claimant opposed this application. The Second Defendant is still occupying the land. The Second Defendant was served with the default judgment on 16 August 2008. It is therefore not true when the Second Defendant said he merely learned about the default judgment on 19 July 2012. The court does not believe that the Second Defendant occupied the land since 1977. The Claimant only saw the Defendants developing her land when she returned from Australia after the tension. Every Fixed Term Estate has a map containing the area and boundary pegs. The Second Defendant should merely leave the area and obey the court orders if his developments are within the Claimant's Fixed Term Estate.
   
7. The court has read the draft defence. I do consider that it has merits. The court will refuse this application.
   

Order: 1. Application is refused.
2. It is dismissed with costs.
3. The Second Defendant is to pay the Claimants costs of this application.

THE COURT