PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Solomon Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Solomon Islands >> 2013 >> [2013] SBHC 72

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Dekurana Development Company Ltd v Kuku [2013] SBHC 72; HCSI-CC 96 of 2012 (18 June 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)


Civil Case No. 96 of 2012


BETWEEN :


DEKURANA DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY LIMITED
First Claimant


AND:


XIANG LIN TIMBERS (SI) LIMITED
Second Claimant


AND:


OPPORTUNITY KUKU AND JOSEPH
ZIO
Defendants


Date of Ruling: 18 June 2013


Mr. Kaboke for the Claimants


RULING


  1. This is an amended application filed by the Claimants on 1st May 2012 for the following relief: (1) An Interim Order against the Defendants by themselves, their servants or Agents and or any other persons under their authorities from disputing and or interfering with their lawful logging operations on Dekurana Customary Land ("the land") which was under the First Claimant's Felling License No. A1011107 until further orders of this court; (2) costs and (3) any other orders deem necessary by the court.
  2. The Land is situated in North New Georgia, New Georgia Island, in the Western Province. The First Claimant is a company incorporated in Solomons. It is the holder of Felling Licence No. A101107, which acquired timber rights over the land pursuant to the timber right acquisition process under the Forest and Timber Utilization Act.
  3. The Second Defendant is a limited company duly incorporated in Solomon Islands. The First Claimant engaged the Second Claimant in a Technology and Management Agreement to conduct logging operations on the First Claimant's concession area on the Land. This Technology Agreement was executed between the parties on 6 December 2011. The First Claimant's Felling Licence will be valid until 2017.
  4. The Second Defendant landed its logging machines and equipment at a place called Koqu Rice after it was obstructed from landing them at Miho Marine proposed logging pond. That obstruction was made by the Defendants and their supporters by lighting fire at Miho from which action the employees of the Second Claimant drew an inference that the machines and equipment would be set on fire.
  5. After the machines were landed, the Defendants asked Chief Gilisi Naisi and other trustees of the Land to exclude the areas from Baini river to Barora river as their reserved land. This was refused because the area was identified to be cleared in preparation to build a training centre.
  6. Another person by the name of Ezra approached Chief Gilisi Naisi and Edrick Lina, and instructed them not to construct access roads towards the Second proposed pond at Woewoe, Chief Naisi refused this demand on the basis that the area was situated within the First Claimant's concession area and felling licence.
  7. Police Officers stationed at Noro in the Western Province attended to this dispute. They found evidence of intimidation and disturbance by the Defendants in relation to the logging operation by the Claimants. The Police in Noro suggested that the Claimants seek restraining orders at the High Court against the Defendants and their agents from disturbing the Claimants' logging operation.
  8. There was also dispute regarding the eastern boundary of the Land between the First Claimant and the owners of a registered land to the east of the First Claimant's land. It was ascertained by a survey carried out by a private surveyor who found that there was some encroachment by the Claimants into that registered land. Both parties to this dispute should abide by that boundary because that would the correct boundary of the land on the eastern side of the Land.
  9. The First Claimant contends that the Defendants are not members of the Dekurana Clan or tribe. There is no doubt that the Second Claimant still faces threats of arson on its machines and equipment in this logging operation. The Claimants are therefore entitled to have the orders sought from the court to ensure the safety of both employees and machines of the Second Claimant.
  10. The court will accordingly grant the interim restraining orders sought by the Claimants in this application. The Defendants are to pay the Claimants' costs of this application. Order accordingly.

THE COURT


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2013/72.html