Maenu'u v Ramo [2013] SBHC 35; HCSI-CC 32 of 2013 (5 April 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 32 of 2013

BETWEEN:

PAUL MAENU'U AND HARDYSON
LEKOLO MAENU'U
Claimants

AND:

GABRIEL RAMO, SILAS LAMANI,
DAVID KOFELA, GABRIEL KILIFA AND
NORMAN DEFE
First Defendants

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF LANDS
Second Defendant

AND:

JAPHET LIMOPU
(Acquisition Officer)
Third Defendant

AND:

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Fourth Defendant

Hearing : 27 February 2013
Ruling : 5 April 2013

RULING

[1] The Claim and the application. The Claimant filed Civil Claim No. 32 of 2013 and this application against the Defendants on 11 February 2013. In the application they seek the following orders: (1) An order to bring up and quash the decision of the Acquisition Officer ("the Third Defendant") made on 28 March 2011 in respect of Parcel Number LR 1098, Lolo Land, on Manaoba Island in Malaita Province; (2) In the alternative, a declaration that the acquisition process conducted by the Third Defendant was ultra vires part 5 of the Land and Titles Act; (3) Restrain all funds due to the First Defendants for the construction of the airport on Lolo Land and (4) Costs.

[2] Brief background. The Second Defendant appointed the Third Defendant as his agent to go to Manaoba Island to acquire portion of Lolo Customary Land to build an airport. On 14 March 2011, the Third Defendant arrived at Hatodea Village at Manaoba Island to acquire the land. Upon his arrival an Agreement for lease of customary (Form LC2) was signed by Gabriel Ramo, Silas Lamani, David Kofela, Gabriel Kilifa and Norman Defe. The sketch of Manaoba Island bearing the location of Lolo Customary land, the site for the proposed airport and the boundary across one end of Manaoba Island were drawn on the second page of the Lease Agreement. A public Notice (Form CL3) for a public hearing on 28 March 2011 at Hatodea Village, to hear other ownership claims over Lolo Customary was put up at Hatodea Village on 14 March 2013. The public hearing was convened on 28 March 2013 but no new claims on the ownership of Lolo Land was received by the Third Defendant. There was no notice of appeal against the decision of the Third Defendant being received within the relevant period at the Magistrate Court in Auki. In view of that, the perpetual Estate in LR 1098 Land was registered in the name of the First Defendants.

[3] An argument was advanced that the decision of the Third Defendant should be brought to court and be quashed because the Third Defendant had not fully complied with the process to acquire Lolo customary land for the airport. The court has considered that argument but feel there is no clear convincing evidence upon which the court could quash the decision of the Third Defendant. Further, it has not been proved on the balance of probabilities that the acquisition process conducted by the Third Defendant was ultra vires to part 5 of the Land and Titles Act.

[4] The court had read authorities filed in court. It is clear that the land on which the proposed airport is to be constructed is Lolo Land[1]. This customary land has no other names in custom.

[5] There are issues yet to be considered in this case. This includes the consent order of the High Court entered into by the parties on 2 January 1999. That would require witnesses to testify in court. Their evidence needs to test by cross-examination to ascertain the veracity of their evidence. I consider that the funds to build the proposed airport be restrained. This is because outstanding matters are yet to be considered during the trial.

[6] In conclusion orders 1 and 2 sought in the application are refused. Order 3 is granted pending trial. The Claimants and the First Defendants are to bear their own costs. The case is adjourned to 18 April 2013 at 9.30 am for mention. Order accordingly.

THE COURT

---

^[1] See the decision of the MCLAC delivered on 3 June 1997.