Tarihao v Akoi [2013] SBHC 210; HCSI-CC 58 of 2011 (4 June 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 58 of 2011

BETWEEN:

FRANCIS TARIHAO AND VINCENT NAKUMORA
(Representing themselves and members of Airaha Tribe who oppose Logging on Aihara Customary Land) of West Are are, Malaita Province)
Claimants

AND:

SYVESTER AKOI
(Representing himself and others trading as Rarahu Landholding group of Harumou Village, West Are are, Malaita Province.
First Defendant

AND:

SAMLIMSAN (SI) LIMITED
Second Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Forest Resources)
Third Defendant

Ruling : 4 June 2013

Ms. Ramo for the Claimants
Mr. Pitakaka for the First and Second Defendants
Mr. Hapa for the Applicant

RULING

1. This is an application by Jimmy Ninipua ("the Applicant") filed on 14 September 2012. His application is made on behalf of himself and members of the Urunitani Tribe. He is the son of his father Late Ben Ninipua who was a signatory and trustee on behalf of the Urunitani Tribe in relation to the Standard Logging Agreement on Urunitani Customary land executed between the trustees of the Urunitani Tribe and the Rarahu Land holding Co. Limited on 7 June 2008.
   
2. After the Standard Logging Agreement was signed, a dispute regarding the ownership of Urunitani arose between the Urunitani Tribe and the Claimants. The dispute was referred to Po'okera house of Chiefs to hear and make a decision on the ownership issue regarding Urunitani Customary Land. The Applicant paid a fee of $500.00 to the Chiefs to hear the dispute.
   
3. The Po'okera house of Chiefs heard the dispute from 3 to 8 April 2012. The Applicant made submissions on behalf of the Urunitani Tribe. And the Chiefs delivered their judgment on 20 July 2012. The Chiefs accepted evidence of the Applicant and sub tribes and gave judgment in favour of the applicant with the sub tribes he represents. That decision has not been appealed to the Local court and to date remains as it was made by the Chiefs on 20 July 2012.
   
4. This application is accordingly allowed.
   

ORDER:

(1) Application allowed.

(2) The Applicant be added as a party to this proceeding.

(3) Costs in the cause.

Order accordingly.

THE COURT