Robinson v Attorney General [2014] SBHC 147; HCSI-CC 01 of 2013 (22 October 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Case No. 1 of 2013
(Civil Jurisdiction)

Jay Timi Robinson
Claimant

V

Attorney-General (Representing Commissioner of Forests)
1st Defendant

AND

Kongungaloso Development
2nd Defendant

AND

Lupa Development Company
3rd Defendant

And

Sonic Phase (SI) Limited
4th Defendant

Hearing: 28th July 2014
Judgment: 22nd October 2014

For Claimant: Mr. Makario Tagini
For 1st Defendant: D. Damilea on behalf of AG
For 2nd Defendant: (Nelson Laurere Legal Services), S. Tabo
For 3rd Defendant:
For 4th Defendant: (Nelson Laurere Legal Services), S. Tabo

PALMER CJ:

1. The Claimant applies for summary judgment pursuant to rules 9.58 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 ("the Civil Procedure Rules").
   
2. He asserts there was no timber rights hearing on the 12th May 1998 at Seghe, Marovo, as claimed by the second and fourth defendants ("the Defendants") and therefore the timber rights process purportedly concluded thereafter which resulted in the issue of the timber licence no. A10003 on 6 May 2011 to be invalid. He says there can be no defence to his claim in the light of the non-existence of a valid timber rights hearing.
   
3. He relies on two affidavits filed by Elton Sikala on 23rd August 2012 and a statutory declaration made by Allan Pulepae dated 22nd October 2012, in which both denied the existence of any timber rights hearing on 12th May 1998.
   
4. In order for the Defendants to successfully challenge the application for summary judgment, they would need to show that there is at least a real dispute[1], that is there is a clear case[2] with supporting materials, or there is a good defence on the merits, which are sufficient to demonstrate a defence so that it can be said there is an arguable defence[3], or a prima facie defence on the records.
   
5. I have had the opportunity to consider the submissions of the Defendants objecting the application for summary judgment. They say in their defence that they hold a valid licence over their customary land Kongungaloso land and that a timber rights hearing was held on 12 May 1998 over grant of timber rights over the said land.
   
6. In support, they have provided numerous sworn statements, which contradict the assertions of the Claimant. These included the sworn statements of Erick Kituru filed on 9th December 2011 and 21 July 2014, the sworn statement of Mrs. Gloria Dennie filed 17 July 2014, sworn statement of Allan Pulepae filed 14 July 2014 and sworn statement of Blacky Steven filed also on the same date. All deponents have stated that a timber rights hearing was convened on 12 May 1998, at Seghe, Marovo. In particular, Allan Pulepae has recanted on his earlier statement in which he had purported to deny the existence or validity of the timber rights hearing.
   
7. I am satisfied the Defendants have raised an arguable defence in terms of the validity of the timber rights hearing and the process of the issue of their timber licence. The truth of whether there was such a timber rights hearing will have to be left for trial when all the evidence has been produced and submissions concluded. It would not be proper to conclude the matter now by granting the orders sought for summary judgment. The application is dismissed with costs.
   

Orders of the Court:

1. Dismiss application for Summary judgment.
2. Direct that the matter proceed to the first court hearing for directions 7 days hereafter.
3. The costs of the Defendants to be borne by the Plaintiff.
   

The Court.

---

^[1] Rule 9.66 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007
^[2] Golden Springs Ltd v. Paia [1999] SBCA 11; CA-CAC 19 of 1998(24 November 1999)
^[3] Te’eu v. Sanau [2001] SBHC 74; HC-CC 090 of 2001