Miki v Bradford [2014] SBHC 139; HCSI-CC 208 of 2012 (13 November 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Faukona J)

Civil Case No. 208 of 2012

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM MIKI AND LYNDA MIKI
Claimants

AND:

PHILLIP BRADFORD AND ANITA
BRADFORD
First Defendants

AND:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 27th August 2014.
Submissions: 5th September 2014 and 8th October 2014.

Date of Judgment: 13th November 2014.

Mr D. Lidimani for the Claimant
Mr A. Radclyffee for the First Defendants
Mr D. Damilea for the Second Defendant.

JUDGMENT

Faukona J: An amended claim category A was filed by the Claimants on 3rd August 2012. The claimants sought three reliefs. One is for rectification of the lands registry of the title in PN 191-029-197 on the ground of mistake. Consequent to that the Claimant be given right to subdivide the land into two sub-parcels with newly allocated parcel numbers and retain part of the land. That should be a supplementary condition of the agreement executed by the parties.

2. At all material times the Claimant was the registered owner of the fixed term estate in PN 191-029.197 located at West Kolaridge. Adjacent to his land is the land owned by the first Defendants. Apparently, the Claimants and the first Defendants lived side by side as neighbours and had known each other for many years.

3. Sometimes in late October 2011 the first named Claimant approached the first named first Defendant to see if he was interested in purchasing the land in front of their adjoining property. That very land is the subject matter of this case and has an area of approximately 0.3318 hectare.

4. The first Defendants then made a verbal offer of $500,000.00 which later increased to $600,000.00 as a result of negotiations. A written agreement was then executed by both parties on 1st and 2nd November 2011, to conclude the sale and purchase of PN 191-029-197. Consequent to that, a letter by Mr Miki on 3rd November 2011 requesting consent to transfer the title of the land to the first Defendants. Consent was given by the Commissioner of Lands on the same date per his letter. As a result transfer of the estate instruments were executed by the parties on 15th and 16th of November 2011.

5. The main thrust of the Claimant's case is that the land registry ought to be rectified on the ground of mistake, premise on the fact that both parties had agreed that PN 191-029-197 would be subdivided after it was finally registered in the names of the first Defendants. And that the first Defendants would only get title to part of the land whilst the other was to be retained by the Claimant.

6. The fraught in that line of argument is many folds. One is, if that was the intention of the Claimants to subdivide the land after transfer and registration, it would be difficult for the claimants because they have no longer owned the property neither the commissioner of lands. They have no right to interfere with the first Defendants' use and enjoyment of the land. Any attempt to do so will render their action as trespassers and may be liable for prosecution.

7. The evidence of Ian Miki and Rocky Misitana have contradicted Mr. Miki's version rendering it without any credibility. Ian Miki said he overheard the prior conversation between his father and Mr Bradford and the word "subdivision" was not mentioned. Rocky Misitana says in Court that he advised Mr. Miki that subdivision must be done first before sale and not after.

8.That evidence affirmed Mr. Bradford's contention that during prior negotiations up to the time of execution of the written contract, and purchase transaction, there was no mention of any subdivision before or after sales and registration. Therefore, the evidence by Mr Miki holds no credibility and cannot be believed. Its credibility is lost and without standing and henceforth diminished to zero strength.

9. The second aspect to consider is the logic that any purchaser who wishes to buy a land would like to ascertain the size and the boundaries of the land. So often the interested purchaser would like to see the physical site and the features before evaluating and concluding on an amount before making an offer. No one will buy a land then thereafter the vendor will enter and attempt to diminish the size by subdivision or deal with it and subsequently change the boundaries. That cannot be possible in practical life. It's totally out of context of a right minded person, and it's illegal.

10. Lastly the most significant document that concludes all negotiations and which brings the minds of the parties to one focal point was the written contract endorsed and executed by the parties on 1st and 2nd November 2011 (Exhibit PB2 to Bradford sworn statement). There was no mention in that document of any subdivision after purchase and registration. Should there be, the first Defendants would certainly encounter legal implications as pointed out earlier in paragraph 8 and 9.

11. On 3rd November 2011, Mr Miki applied to the Commissioner of Lands for consent to transfer the whole parcel to the first Defendants not just part of it, or any exceptional for that matter (See Exh PB4). Five days before that, on 29th October 2011 Mr. Miki sought consent to subdivide (Exh. WM3 of Miki swore statement). What actually transpired is that the Commissioner of Lands activated the second letter therefore that request superseded the earlier letter for subdivision. Mr. Miki's attempt to subdivide after registration was illegal and a trespass.

12. The claim by Mr Miki that he kept a note of a conversation he had with Mr Bradford on 28th October 2011 to affirm prior knowledge of subdivision cannot be of any assistant to him. Importantly, what finalises all prior negotiations had been entrenched and converted into a written agreement which parties have signed. And that is a conclusive evidence of the sale; there is nothing more left.

13. The fact that Mr. Miki informed other interested buyers of his intention to subdivide the land is irrelevant. The contract is the document that governs the dealings. After the title had been transferred then Mr. Miki raised with Mr. Bradford the issue of subdivision. That is more than late. Contract of sale had been concluded.

14. Having said that, I must therefore refuse to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimants.

Orders:

1. Refused to grant order for rectification of the land registry to PN-191-029-197 on the ground of mistake.

2. Refused to grant order for declaration that Claimant would have right to subdivide PN-191-029-197 and retain part of it that should form supplementary condition of the agreement.

3. Refused to grant order to subdivide PN-191-029-197 into two (2) sub-parcels.

4. Cost of incident to this action be paid by the Claimant to Defendants.

The Court