Pitakaka v Provan [2015] SBHC 69; HCSI-CC 365 of 2014 (17 August 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Faukona J)

Civil Case No. 365 of 2014

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL PITAKAKA, ELIJAH PITAKAJI, ABENDNIGO
TOQEKANA, NASON NESAPA, PHILIP BAVARE
Claimant

AND:

SECRETARY OF BATAVA COUNCIL OF CHIEFS
BERRY PROVAN
(Representing the Batava Council of Chiefs,
Northwest Choiseul, Choiseul Province)
First Defendant

AND:

BEN TAKAKOLO, MARK KALE, FRED VOZOTO OF KIBI TRIBE
(Representing themselves and their clan/tribe )
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 17th August 2015
Date of Ruling: 17th August 2015

Mr G. Suri for the Claimants
Mr J. Pitabelama for the First and Second Defendants.

RULING

Faukona PJ: A claim in category C was filed by the Claimants on 29th October 2014. It was a claim for judicial review. A defence was filed on 2nd December 2014. By Rule 15.3.16 which states after the defence has been filed and served, the court must call a conference. This hearing is that conference, to consider the requirements under Rule 15.3.18.

2. The Claimant, inter alia, seeks a number of remedies. The most important one is to quash the notice issued by Batava Council of Chiefs on 3rd October 2014. That notice required the attendance of all parties including the Claimants to subject to its jurisdiction to resolve issues of genealogy, landownership and land boundaries.

3. It was against that notice that the Claimants filed a claim for judicial review and argue that the first Defendant has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the customary land dispute. Mr Suri refers to Section 11 and 12 of the Local Court Act. Section 11 is the interpretation section. It defines Chief means chief or other traditional leaders residing within the locality of the land and who the parties recognised.

4. There is no dispute the Batava House of Chiefs is a long distance away from where the land is situated. The reason for this is because Senga area where the lands is situated do not have a House of Chiefs, and the next house of Chiefs closer to Senga area is Babatana House of Chiefs. The problem with Babatana House of Chiefs is that both parties do not agree with.

5. After further submissions both Counsels agree that the law has to be complied with and the dispute be referred to the Senga House of Chiefs. Any objection against any particular chief can be made by the parties during the course of the Chief's proceedings. Parties also agree that the notice issued by the Batava House of Chiefs for parties to be subject to its jurisdiction be dismissed.

Orders:

1. By consent of Counsels the case now refers to Senga House of Chiefs to determine the issues of genealogy, land and boundary disputes.

2. That the notice of appearance issued by Batava House of Chief to all concern parties be quashed and dismissed.

3. Cost in the cause.

The Court.