Alekevu v Naisi [2014] SBHC 100; HCSI-CC 108 of 2013 (28 July 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction

BETWEEN:

ROYCE ALEKEVU, DAVID ALEKEVU and SHANE TUTUA
Claimants

AND:

GILISI NAISI and EDRIC LUNA
Defendants

Ms. M. Bird for the claimants/Respondents.
Mr. T. Kama for the defendants/applicants.

Date of hearing: 30 June 2014.
Date of Judgment: 28 July 2014.

RULING
Apaniai, PJ:

1. This is an application by the defendants to have this claim struck out on the grounds that the claim is frivolous and vexatious and discloses no reasonable cause of action; that it is statute-barred; that it is an abuse of the court process; and, that the claimants are stopped by judgment from bringing the claim.
   
2. In the claim, the claimants seek the following remedies:-
   

[1] A declaration that Judge Philips finding of 1923 to 1925 stating that Komehe was the true chief of Dekurana land is not a legally binding document that any party to a land dispute case can rely upon;

[2] A declaration that the Western Customary Land Appeal Court ("WCLAC") had erred in its determination in Case No. 5 of 1978 between Naisi Luna and Boaz Seijama to rely upon Judge Philips finding and concluding that Komehe was the true chief of Dekurana land;

[3] A further declaration that in relying upon the said finding, the WCLAC had erroneously found that the claimants and the defendants party had equal right of ownership over Hetaheta land;

[4] That if the above declarations sought are granted in the claimants favour, then the claimants seek orders that the judgments in Case No. 5 of 1978 and Customary Land Appeal Case No. 5 of 1979 are null and of no effect;

[5] A further order that the decision of the Marovo local court in Case No. 1 of 1978 be re-instated;

[6] Costs against the defendants.

3. The facts are not seriously disputed. They are as follows:-
   
4. In 1978, Boaz Seijama from the claimants' tribe, brought a trespass case against Naisi Luna of the defendants' tribe in the Marovo local court in Civil Case No. 1/78. In that case, the local court held that Boaz Seijama and his tribes owned the Hetaheta land. Against that local court decision, Luna appealed to the WCLAC in Land Appeal case No. 5 of 1978.
   
5. In the WCLAC appeal, Luna, in his evidence, referred to Judge Philip's report made in 1923 on an inquiry into land matters. That report said that Dekurana is the land from Niva to Barora and was inherited by Chief Naisi Luna from his father, Luna, and his grandfather, Komehe. Luna said that the finding by the local court was inconsistent with Judge Philip's report.
   
6. After considering the evidence before it, the WCLAC decided that Luna and Seijama were related and that they both had equal rights over Hetaheta. As a result, the WCLAC allowed the appeal. On appeal against the WCLAC decision by Luna in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1979, the High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the WCLAC decision in Civil Case No. 5 of 1978, which conferred equal rights over Hetaheta to both Luna and Seijama.
   
7. It seems to me that the approach adopted by the claimants in this case is to attack Judge Philip's Report and, should they succeed in invalidating the Report, all the consequential relieves sought in paragraph 2 [2] to [6] should be granted as a matter of course.
   
8. I think this claim can be dealt with shortly. I agree with counsel for the defendants, Mr. Kama, that this claim is frivolous and vexatious and discloses no cause of action as well as it is an abuse of the court process. The reasons are clear.
   
9. First, Judge Philip's Report was part of the evidence presented by Luna in his appeal to the WCLAC to support his claim that he is the chief of Dekurana and that there is no Hetaheta land. The report being evidence, it is entirely a matter for the discretion of the WCLAC whether or not to accept the Report, and it appears to me that the WCLAC had partly accepted the Report concerning the status of Luna as chief, but had rejected the assertion by Luna that there is no Hetaheta land. The declaration sought in paragraph 1 of the claim is therefore misconceived and I refuse to grant that declaration.
   
10. Second, I agree with counsel for the defendants that this claim is an abuse of the court process. It seems to me that if this claim succeeds, it will open the way to re-litigate the issues which have already been settled in Civil Case No. 1/78, Land Appeal case No. 5 of 1978 and Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1979. In other words, it is an attempt to re-litigate the issues which have already been settled in Civil Case No. 1/78, Land Appeal case No. 5 of 1978 and Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1979, but under the guise of a challenge to Judge Philip's Report.
    
11. Accordingly, I grant this application and dismiss the claim herein. I order that the claimants pay the costs of the defendants of, and in connection with, this application and the claim on indemnity basis to be taxed if not agreed. Orders accordingly.
    

THE COURT

_________________________
James Apaniai
Puisne Judge.