Isiola v Poikera House of Chiefs [2016] SBHC 106; HCSI-CC 536 of 2015 (27 July 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

(Faukona PJ)

CIVIL CASE NO. 536 OF 2015

BETWEEN: JEFFERY ISIOLA, LABAN HONIMAE, Claimant
KEMUEL KOKEPAINE, GIDEON WATELIU

AND: THE POIKERA HOUSE OF CHIEFS First Defendant

AND: CHRIS WATE Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 27^th July 2016

Date of Ruling: 27^th July 2016

Mr B. Upwe for the Claimants
Ms A. Willy for the First Defendant
Mr D. Nimepo for the Second Defendant

RULING ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT

Faukona PJ: A claim for judicial review was filed by the Claimants on 19^th October 2015. The review action is for this Court to review the decision of Poikera House of Chiefs and grant five reliefs as sought.

2.	Conditional Responses were filed by the Defendants on 10th and 11th December 2015 respectively.
3.	On 11th December 2015 application to strike out pursuant to R9.75 was filed by the first Defendant to strike out the claim for judicial review.
4.	Application under R9.75 is a general application to strike out a claim which in the view of the applicant is frivolous or does not disclose any cause of action or is an abuse of process.
5.	The gist of the Defendants’ submissions is compliance with provisions of the Local Court Act, in particular the issue as to which forum established by law, should hear the issue of land ownership after the Chiefs had made their decision. Whether it should be a referral to the Local Court or a claim for judicial review in the High Court. On that note, it definitely attracts a proposition that the claim for judicial review was improperly filed. The proper channel should be a referral case filed with the relevant Local Court to determine the issue of ownership.
6.	Further to that, issues of physical jurisdiction and rule of natural justice was raised but was without particularisation.
7.	In the end it is argued that the reliefs sought can be best dealt with by the Local Court.
8.	Apparently the issues raise during submissions can be best left when it comes to Chapter’s 15 pre-trial conferences. R15.3.18 set out requirements which the Claimant must fulfil to the satisfaction of the Court otherwise the claim be dismissed. Paragraph (d) of that rule requires whether there is no other remedy that resolves the matter fully and directly and which is directly and readily available than a claim for judicial review in the High Court.
9.	This application is misconceived and an abuse of process. To deal with it in detail with diligent and without any duplication of work, it should be reserve and should be raised at Chapter 15 pre- trial conference. I could foresee in the end the same result can be achieved. The best option in my opinion is to defer all arguments until Ch.15 PTC is conducted and the counsels should utilise paragraph (d) of R15.3.18 to raise arguments concerning proper avenue where remedy could be sought by the Claimants. Meantime I must dismiss the application with costs.
	Orders:
	1.	Application to strike out dismissed
	2.	Costs be paid to the Claimants by the Defendants
	3.	A date be set for Chapter 15 Pre-Trial Conference (been done).
	The Court.