Koga v Attorney General [2013] SBHC 70; HCSI-CC 105 of 2012 (10 June 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 105 of 2012

BETWEEN:

HEINZ KOGA, PAUL GESI, JACKSON HAELI AND
LENCE RINA, CHARLES TANI, CONSTANT
GERRY AND MAX LUA, BENJAMIN SUILA,
EZEKIEL KEIRUKA AND MAX KOLUBALONA
(Representing the members of the tribes of Garavu (big line)
and Manukiki (small line) and members of the Coastal land
Owners of Haliatu/Malaneti Communities)
First Claimants

AND:

GUADALCANAL EXPLORATION PTY LTD
Second Claimants

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Acquisition office, Japhet Limopu)
First Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Provincial Secretary of Guadalcanal
Province)
Second Defendant

AND:

MARTIN TSUKI, MATTHEW MOLI, MOFFAT
HOBI, NESTER RADI AND MANUEL POLITO
(C/- Light Lawyers)
Third Defendant

Date of Ruling : 10 June 2013

Mr. Marahare for the Claimants
Mr. Hanu for the First and Second Defendants
Mr. Hou for the Third Defendant

RULING

1. This is an amended application filed on 28 August 2012 for judicial review filed on 16 April 2012 by the Claimants.
   
2. The Third Defendants apply for the following orders:
   
   1. A declaration that the First Claimants have no locus standi to institute an action for judicial review against the determination of the First Defendant of 22 December 2011, on the basis that the decision of Local Court of 8 October 1998 was set aside by the Guadalcanal Customary land Appeal Court ("GCLAC") in its decision of 21 July 2010.
      
   2. A declaration that the First Claimants have failed to lodge any claim of ownership over Koloula Valley customary land during the public hearing conducted by the First Defendant on 21 December 2012, despite being given several chances to do so, have no locus standi to institute any action for judicial review against the determination of 22 December 2011.
      
   3. Subject to orders 1 and 2 herein being granted, the following consequential order and declaration are sought;
      
      • (i) An order that the Claimants' Judicial Review filed in this action on 16 April 2012 be struck out; and
        
      • (ii) A further declaration that the Appeal by the First Claimant at the Magistrates on 2 February 2012 as the First, Second and Third Appellants in MC Land Appeal Case No. 36 of 2012 against the determination of the First Defendant of 22 December 2011 is null and void.
        
   4. A declaration that the Second Claimant has no locus standi to institute any action for judicial review against the determination of the First Defendant which deals with the Third Defendant's customary ownership of the Koloula Valley Customary Land and in particular their rights as to the customary owners to sell the land and receive the purchase money therefore.
      
   5. Alternatively, an order that the First and Second Claimants' claim for Judicial Review filed in this action on 16 April 2012 under Chapter 15.3 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 be struck out on the ground that it is an abuse of the process of the court.
      
   6. An order that First and Second Claimants pay the Third Defendant's costs incidental to this action on indemnity basis.
      
   7. Such further and other orders as the court thinks fit to make in the circumstances.
      
5. There is evidence that the Second Claimant has a prospecting license over Koloula customary land. It is prospecting in the area with customary landowners. It has a map of the prospecting area with a business license.
   

The land dispute which the customary land appeal court had reverted to the Chiefs for fresh hearing may have not yet been heard. For the moment, the First Claimant made an appeal to the Magistrate. The court does not have details of such the appeal. It is clear though that the Second Claimant has locus standi. This court does not know the particulars of the chances, which the second claimant was given to make objections at during the land acquisition proceedings.

In the circumstance, the orders sought in the application are refused, the application is accordingly dismissed with costs.

THE COURT