Kee v Matefaka [2014] SBHC 112; HCSI-CC 337 of 2013 (13 October 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(FAUKONA J)

CIVIL CASE NO. 337 OF 2013

BEFORE:

SIA KEE and LAU HING HUNG
Claimants

AND:

WILFRED MATEFAKA
First Defendant

AND:

MARY TAISIA
Second Defendant

AND:

ALICK DERRY
Third Defendant

AND:

JACK PEOA
Fourth Defendant

AND:

MOSES
Fifth Defendant

AND:

JOHN MEKAPOTI
Sixth Defendant

AND:

SAMU TASI
Seventh Defendant

AND:

FREDA MATEFAKA
Eighth Defendant

AND:

BADDLEY RARAI
Ninth Defendant

Date of Hearing: 16th September 2014
Date of Ruling: 13th October 2014.

Mr N. Hou for the Claimants
Mr C. Solosaia for the Defendants

RULING

Faukona J: This application was filed on 17th June 2014. It is an application to stay enforcement orders pursuant to Rule 21.8. The enforcement orders were issued on 10th March 2014.

2. Enforcement orders are orders granted in the final stage of the civil processes. The next stage is the actual execution or enforcement of such orders.

3. The Defendants now come to Court and seek mercy of the Court to stay enforcement of orders issued by this court on 10th March 2014. They have various reasons pleaded, which uphold fairness and just dispensation of justice. Reasons include mal administration by the Commissioner of Lands, no payment of stamp duty, and the issue of right of occupation.

4. Whilst challenging the circumstances surrounding the grant and transfer of the title, the Defendants also question that their rights were denied. They were not given sufficient time to prepare before vacation, and the manner in which the eviction orders were carried out was contrary to their rights and freedom from forced eviction.

5. Administration and management of Crown land is a function vested upon the Commissioner Lands and the Registrar of Titles. That includes allocations and grant of titles. That function can only be questioned through the Court challenging the validity of a title. Whosoever is occupying Crown land without going through the formal processes and without the consent and approval by the Commissioner of Lands occupies that land illegally and can be forced to vacate if there is resistances or unwillingness to vacate.

6. I noted the bulk of the Defendants reasons to stay enforcement orders premise on the question of grant of title. Mr. Hou submits that the Defendants should challenge the Claimants' title in fresh proceedings. He further submits that this case has now been completed and the enforcement orders had been carried out and all the Defendants have now vacated the land.

7. I seem to agree with Mr. Hou perhaps that is the only way forward. It appears that all the Defendants wish they be heard and the only avenue available is to file a civil proceeding in the High Court challenging the title currently held by the Claimants.

Orders:
1. Application to set aside Enforcement orders issued on 10th March 2014 refused and dismissed.

2. Refused to grant order 2 as sought.

3. Cost of this proceeding to be paid by the Defendants to the Claimants.

The Court.