Mae v Sanau [2015] SBHC 124; HCSI-CC 388 of 2009 (25 September 2015)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua, DCJ)

Civil Case No. 388 of 2009

BETWEEN : PETER MAE AND JOSEPH MAEWEWE - Claimants
AND : ALICK SANAU Trading as RAMO Holdings - 1^st Defendant
AND : SOLOMON ISLANDS RESOURCES LIMITED - 2^nd Defendant

Date of Judgment: 25^th September 2015

Mr. P. Tegavota for the Claimants
Mr. M. Pitakaka for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendant

JUDGMENT

1. The Claimants’ Claim: On 7^th October 2009 the Claimants filed their claim against the First and Second Defendants. These are the facts in support of their claim:
   
   • (i) The Claimants are Landowners and the represent the landowners of Suluoa’oa Land also called Hahowei Land.
     
   • (ii) Suluoa’oa/Hahowei is bounded by Waloa’a river, Lolomo river and Namorodo river.
     
   • (iii) In or around mid-June 2009, the first and second Defendants without the consent of the Claimants entered Suluoa’oa/Hahowei land by constructing two access roads. The first access road was constructed at a distance of 150 meters. The Claimants then erected a road block which forced the second Defendant to withdraw its machineries and logging equipment.
     
   • (iv) The First and Second Defendants then constructed a second access road into the Claimants land, this time a distance of 204 meters. The Claimants again blocked the second access road. The Second Defendant again withdrew all its machines from the said land.
     
   • (v) A month later, the Defendants again entered the Claimants’ land without their consent. This time, the Defendant felled and extracted logs illegally from the Claimants for the purpose of sale and export. The Defendants also caused considerable damages to the Claimants’ land. The logs were taken to the Defendants log pond. There were 400 logs in all.
     
   • (vi) The Defendants’ felling licence did not cover the Claimants’ land. Further there was no timber rights agreement covering Suluoa’oa/Hahowei Land.
     
   • (vii) The Defendants therefore trespassed onto the Claimants’ land.
     
   • (viii) The reliefs sought by the Claimants are:
     
     1. Damages and compensation for trespass
     2. Full export value of the logs
     3. Access fees
     4. Costs
        
2. The Defendants’ Defence
   

Their defence are as follows:

(i) Suluoa’oa/Hahowei land is not a customary land but the name of a tribe.

(ii) Suluoa’oa/Hahowei land is situated within Huruniteumae and Apuilalamua lands and therefore part of these two lands.

(iii) Felling licence No.A10371 also covers Huruniteumae and Apuilalamua Land.

(iv) Mononga customary land is covered by felling licence No. A10371. Huruniteumae and Apuilalamua are part of Mononga Land and therefore also covered under Felling Licence No. A10371.

(v) The Defendants entered Huruniteumae and Apuilalamua Land covered under Felling Licence No.A10371 and not Suluoa’oa Land.

(vi) The timber rights process covered Huruniteumae and Apuilalamua.

(vii) The Claimants have no Chiefs decision in their favour over the land they claim as Suluoa’oa/Hahoiwei Land.

(viii) Huruniteumae and Apuilalamua were covered under the timber rights process, felling licence, harvesting plans, coup plan and technology agreement.

3. AGREED FACTS AND ISSUES FILLED ON 13^TH OCTOBER 2011
   
   • (a) The agreed facts are as follows:
     
     • (i) The disputed land claimed by the Claimants is Suluoa’oa/Hahoiwei Land.
       
     • (ii) The First Defendant was trading under a business name called RAMO Holdings.
       
     • (iii) The First Defendants was issued with felling licence No.A10371 by the Commissioner of Forests on 16^th June 2009.
       
     • (iv) The First Defendants engaged the Second Defendant as its logging contractor under a technology and management agreement dated 4^th May 2007.
       
     • (v) On or about June 2009, the First and the Second Defendants entered the disputed land and carried out construction of logging roads, felling and extraction of logs further purpose of sale and selling the logs felled and extracted.
       
     • (vi) The Defendants did not pay the Claimants from the sale of logs out of the disputed land.
       
   • (b) The Agreed issues are as follows:
     
     • (i) Whether the Defendants entered the disputed land, felled and extracted logs for the purpose of sale?
       
     • (ii) Whether the disputed land was covered by any timber rights agreement signed before the Claimants and the first Defendant?
       
     • (iii) Whether the disputed land was covered by any access agreement in favour of the First Defendant signed by the Claimants?
       
     • (iv) Whether felling licence No. A10371 covered the disputed land including Apuilalamua?
       
     • (v) Whether the first and the second Defendants trespassed onto Suluoa’oa/Hahowei land?
       
   • (c) During the trial the following issues emerge:
     
     • (i) Whether Suluoa’oa/Hahowei land is part of Huruniteumae and Apuilalamua land?
       
     • (ii) Whether Suluoa’oa/Hahowei Land, Huruniteumae and Apuilamua Land are separate Lands?
       
     • (iii) Whether Suluoa’oa/Hahowei Land, Huruniteumae Land and Apuilalamua Land are part of Mononga Land.
       
     • (iv) Whether Apuilalamua the name of a Clan or a tribe.
       
     • (v) Whether Huruniteumae is the name of a Land or a tribe?
       
4. The reliefs sought in this case cannot decided unless the issues regarding the customary ownership of Suluoa’oa Customary Land is first determined by the Customary Chiefs, the Local Court and Customary Land Appeal Court.
   
5. For the meant time, this case will be adjourned sine dire, pending any further decisions of either the Local Court or the Customary Land Appeal Court.
   

BY THE COURT

Justice Francis Mwanesalua

DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE