Robinson v Attorney General [2016] SBHC 190; HCSI-CC 470 of 2011 (20 October 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction

BETWEEN:
JAY TIMI ROBINSON

Claimant
(Representing Lupa tribe, Gatokae Island Western Province)

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL

1^st Defendant

(Representing Commissioner of Forest)

KONGUNGALOSO COMPANY

2^nd Defendant

LUPA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

3^rd Defendant

SONIC PHASE (SI) LIMITED

4^th Defendant

Date of Hearing: 13 October 2016
Date of Decision: 20 October 2016

Mr. E. Toifai for claimant: no appearance on hearing
Mr. D. Marahare for 3^rd defendant
Mr. S. Tabo for 2^nd & 4^th defendant

Applications to dismiss claims for want of authority and failure to plead basis of declaration of right to representative capacity for Lupa landowning group.

Brown J:

By amended application of the 3^rd defendant, these proceedings which were originally instituted in 2011, have been brought to court to be dismissed for the claimant, Jay Timi Robinson has evidenced no authority to represent the tribe.

I am satisfied on the evidence of the 2^nd defendant, through Mr. Ghemu, that the Kongungaloso land the subject of the Felling License A10003 did not include Lupa Customary land. I am further satisfied that a declaration in terms of right to Lupa customary land is not available to this court on the material filed by the claimant. Consequently, even in the absence of the claimant, whose non-appearance is not explained by the letter of illness sent to the Registrar, since the matter was listed for hearing today and no counsel has appeared to seek an adjournment on the claimants’ behalf, the fact is that the claimant, Robinson, has shown no claim of his right to Lupa customary land and consequently lacks standing to institute these proceedings.

The proceedings are, on this court’s initiative dismissed in relation to the claim against the 2^nd defendant, pursuant to R. 7.75(b).

So far as the 3^rd defendant is concerned when I have regard to the sworn statement of Merik Belo (sworn 25 April 2016) at paragraph’s 3, 4, 5 and 6. I am not satisfied the claimant has any authority to represent the tribe. The assertion made by the claimant is unsupported by evidence of customary acts whereby the claimant has specific authorization to represent. I am reassured in this view by the statement of Marik Belo who said “the claimant was given authority, by the tribe to be representative for purpose of collecting royalty payments from the 3^rd defendant way back during the period 2008-2009 when Samlimsan Poly Logging Companies were still conducting Logging on Lupa land”

By statement of Tim Brick Steven in support, exhibit “B”, [by resolution of the listed tribal members of the Lupa tribe dated 3 April 2016], specifically denied right in the claimant to bring these proceedings. In terms of R.9.75 (a) the continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process of the Court and are dismissed in relation to the claim against the 3^rd and 4^th defendant (the contractor).

The claim against the 1^st defendant is not particularized and shall also be dismissed in accordance with R.9.75 (b)

The applicant’s costs shall be paid by the claimant. The costs of the 2^nd and 4^th defendant shall be paid by the claimant.
I make no order as to the 1^st defendant’s costs.

__________________
BROWN J