Zhang Jia Szutu v Alliance Training Association of Solomon Islands [2015] SBHC 38; HCSI-CC 248, 249 of 2012 (30 April 2015)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua, J.)

CIVIL JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

ZHANG JIA SZUTU
First Claimant

AND:

PINACLE ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Second Claimant

AND:

ALLIANCE TRAINING ASSOCIATION OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
First Defendant

AND:

TIMOL ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Second Defendant

DATE OF RULING: 30 April 2015

Mr. M. Pitakaka for the Claimants
Mr. G.K. Fa'aitoa for the Defendants

1. The Claimant in Civil Case No. 248 of 2012 is First Claimant and the Defendants are the First and the Second Defendants. The dispute between the parties in this case is over the alleged trespass on Parcel No. 192-041-150. The current registered owner of this Fixed Term Estate is the First Claimant. She was granted ownership of the land by the Commissioner of Lands on 22 December 2010.
   
2. The Claimant in Civil Case No. 249 is the Second Claimant and the Defendants are the First and Second Defendants. The dispute between the parties in this case is over the alleged trespass on Parcel No. 191-041-141 by the Defendants. The current registered owner of this Fixed Term Estate is the Second Claimant. It was granted to it by the Commissioner of Lands on 22 December 2010.
   
3. The First Defendant is the registered owner of the Fixed Term Estate in Parcel No. 191-041-142 and Parcel No. 191-041-149, which are adjoined to Parcels No. 191-041-141 and 191-041-150. All these Fixed Term Estates are situated at the Ranadi Industrial Area, in Honiara.
   
4. The Second Defendant is a company incorporated on or about 7 February 2011. It currently occupies Parcels No. 191-041-141, 191-041-142, 191-041-149 and 191-041-150. It occupies Parcels No. 191-041-142 and No. 191-041-149 through a lease agreement with the First Defendant.
   
5. Civil Cases Nos. 248 and 249 of 2012 have been amalgamated by order of the court. These are applications by the Claimants for restraining orders against the Defendants. The applications are similar. They are as follows:
   

Civil Case No. 248 of 2012

The Applicants apply for:

1. An order to restrain by injunction the Defendant, her agents, employees and whomsoever that associates with her from entering Parcel No. 192-041-150 and carrying out any work whatsoever until further orders of the court;
   
2. Such further or other order as their Honourable Court shall seem fit; and
   
3. Cost in the cause.
   

Civil Case No. 249 of 2012

The Applicants apply for:

1. An order to restrain by injunction the Defendants, her agents, employees and whosoever that may associate with her from entering Parcel No. 191-041-141 and carrying out any work whatsoever until further orders of the court;
   
2. Such further or other order as to the Honourable Court shall seem fit; and
   
3. Costs in the Cause.
   
6. The Claimants have sought interim restraining orders. The purpose of such orders would be to preserve the status quo between the parties for the meantime. That means that the Defendants would suspend their operations, pending the resolution of the dispute. That would prevent the Defendants from providing services to their customers and members of the public. That would adversely affect the Defendants' businesses and services.
   
7. The view of this court is that the boundary pegs of Parcels No. 191-041-141; Parcel No. 191-041-142; Parcel No. 191-041-149 and Parcel No. 191-041-150 be re-checked. And any encroachments into Parcels No. 191-041-041 and Parcel No. 191-041-150 be noted in a report.
   
8. The court therefore make the following orders;
   
   1. Refuse to grant the injunction orders sought in the applications by the Claimants.
      
   2. The office of the Survey General is to retrace the boundary pegs of Parcels of land set out in paragraph 7 above, and compile a report on any unapproved development on Parcel Nos. 191-041-141 and 191-041-150 at earliest convenience.
      
   3. This case is to be mentioned in court Friday 29 May 2015 at 1.30pm.
      

THE COURT