Likovu v Attorney General [2013] SBHC 212; HCSI-CC 38 of 2012 (1 July 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 38 of 2012

BETWEEN :

HILLY LIKOVU, ALICK LUMUBETI,
BASANIO JACK LAMANA AND
TERRY MATEKOLO
(Representing Viuru Tribe)
Claimants

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Western Customary
Land Appeal Court)
First Defendants

AND:

ZORUTU DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Second Defendants

Date of Ruling : 1 July 2013

Mr. Hapa for the Claimants
Mr. Firigeni for the First Defendants
Mr. Suri for the Second Defendants

RULING

1. This is an application by the Claimants for the following orders: (1) The Claimants be granted extension of time outside of the prescribed period to file a claim for quashing order in respect of the judgment of the Western Customary Land Appeal Court delivered on 2 December 2006, specifically in relation to ground 1, in so far as it relied on the sworn evidence of the Clerk to the Gizo/Kolombangara Area Council then, Mr. Kohi Talasasa on the basis that the fresh evidence recently been introduced through the statutory declarations of Messrs Etika Evita made on 25 August 2011 and Kohi Talasasa on 3 November 2011: (a) clearly established that the sworn evidence of the Clerk to Gizo/Kolombangara Area Council then, Mr. Kohi Talasasa, relied upon by the Western Customary Land Appeal Court in its judgment delivered on 2 December 2006 was tainted with falsity; and/or (b) clearly now proved that there was no public timber rights hearing being conducted by the Gizo/Kolombangara Area Council on 1 November 1996; and (2) Cost be in the cause.
   
2. The sworn evidence of Mr. Kohi Talasasa which the Claimants say that the Western Customary Land Appeal Court used in its decision of 2 December 2006, is a statutory declaration made by Mr. Kohi Talasa on 16 May 2001. In that declaration he purportedly said "I was the Secretary of Kolombangara/Gizo area council in 1996, and that I recorded and witnessed the procedure and completion of the form I and form II for Zorutu Development Company" (See Exh. 7). In its decision the Western Customary Land Appeal Court said ".......the sworn evidence of the clerk to Gizo/Kolombangara Area Council Mr. Kohi Talasasa revealed that there was a timber right hearing over Zorutu land held at old SIEA power house in Gizo on 1st November 1996. At that hearing both parties attended and given the opportunity to present their case. The Gizo/Kolombangara Area Council then determined the persons entitled to grant timber rights on Zorutu land and published it in Form II on 27/11/96". The Appellant in that case was Gordon Darcy and the Respondents were James Panda Rizzu and others. The appeal was dismissed.
   
3. Mr. Kohi Talasasa explained that his purported the statutory declaration (Exh. 7) was brought to him by Mr. James Rizzu at the time. Mr. Kohi Talasasa did not know at the time, the purpose Mr. Rizzu required the statutory declaration from him. Mr. Kohi Talasasa further explained that he prepared documents marked "Kt 2", "Kt3", Kt4" and "Kt5" after he was directed by the Provincial Secretary (Western) at that time. As far as he was concerned, exhibited as "Kt7" was brought to him by Mr. Rizzu. This means that Exh. Kt is not his statutory declaration. His signature in that declaration is not the same as his signatories in Exh "Kt2" to Exh. Mark 5", which says belongs to him.
   
4. The background to this case went far back as to 1996. The events and the actions taken by various authorities of the area council may not be easy to recall. But it is clear Mr. Kohi Talasasa said in his sworn evidence that to the best of his knowledge no public timber rights hearing was convened in respect of Zorutu Customary Land. Mr. Etikea Avita was the President of the Gizo/Kolombangara Area Council in 1996. He confirmed that there was no public timber rights hearing convened by the council on 1 November 2001 regarding Zorutu Customary land. He further confirmed that a public timber rights hearing was convened in June 1996 but did not proceed due to a pending High Court case commenced by Mr. Ziru. The court will accordingly grant extension of time to file a claim for judicial review.
   
5. This application is granted with costs to be paid by the Second Defendants.
   

Order accordingly.

THE COURT