Tabe v Pie [2015] SBHC 46; HCSI-CC 319 of 2014 (2 June 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Faukona PJ)

Civil Case No. 319 of 2014

BETWEEN:

CHRIS TABE and GEORGE VARI
(Representing Kochiabolo Tribe)
First Claimants

AND:

NELSON KEPULU and WILSON SUHAPA
(Representing Koenihao Tribe)
Second Claimants

AND:

PHILIP KELA and ASHLEY MASEDI
(Representing Isuana Tribe)
Third Claimants

AND:

STEPHEN PIE
(Representing individuals and groups
claiming ownership of Tana-Aru Land and
Log pond thereon)
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 6th May 2015.
Date of Ruling: 2nd June 2015.

Mr A. Kesaka for the Defendant
No one for all the Claimants

RULING ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT

Faukona PJ: An ex-parte application for interim injunctive orders was heard on 6th October 2014 and they were granted by this Court. Order 3 specifically stated that the Claimants to file their claim within 14 days from the date of the Order. Until today (2nd June 2015) there was no claim at all filed which can be identified in the file.

2. The Defendant instead of insisting on inter-parte hearing file this application to strike out the claim. His reasons for striking out are well narrated by the Counsel in his submissions.

3. On the issue of standing the Claimants are relying on their intention to challenge the right of ownership to Tana'aru customary land awarded to the Defendant by the Local Court in a judgment delivered on 6th April 1987, in Civil Case No. 4/87. That decision was appealed against to the Guadalcanal Customary Land Appeal, but no decision was disclosed. However, there is a statutory declaration made to verify that the appeal was heard and a decision given to that effect.

4. It would probably turn on a different consideration, if the Claimants have shown by evidence that a reference or claim of ownership was filed with the appropriate Chiefs. In this case there was nothing to show. At the hearing of the application for ex-parte interim orders, the Claimants were relying merely on assertion of ownership and their intention to file a land dispute case which they had never done.

5. The second reason is that the Claimants after obtaining the interim injunctive orders, failed to comply with Order 3 that is to file a claim within 14 days. Further still, they fail to appear in Court to defend the Defendant's application to strike out. Notices were issued to Counsels representing parties and personal service had been done upon the Counsel for the Claimants at his Office – see sworn statement of service filed on 6th May 2015. The Counsel chooses not to attend and had not explained in good time his reasons for not attending Court. His failure must carry some consequences to his client's case.

6. Since there was no claim filed and the Counsel representing the Claimants did not appear in Court to prosecute their case by way of defending this application, it is proper in the circumstance that the interim orders of 6th October 2014, is discharged and the claim if ever be filed in the future be struck out.

Orders:

1. Ex-parte interim injunctive orders made on 6th October 2014 is discharged.

2. Any claim filed in the future in response to order 3 which now being more than late be struck out.

3. Cost of this application is to be paid to the Defendant.

The Court.