JJ Ltd v Eke [2017] SBHC 34; HCSI-CC 53 of 2017 (5 July 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 53 of 2017

BETWEEN: J J LIMITED - Claimant

AND: ABRAHAM EKE - First Defendant

AND: ISLAND TANKS LIMITED - Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 23^rd June 2017.
Date of Ruling: 5^th July 2017.

Mr. W.K. Togamae and H.Rini for the Claimant/Applicant.
Mr. G. Fa’aitoa for the First and Second Defendants/Respondents.

KENIAPISIA; PJ:

RULING AFTER INTER-PARTES HEARING

1. Today is the Inter-Party hearing following the ex-parte orders, Court granted and perfected on 16/03/2017. The main issue today is whether to continue with the ex-parte injunction orders or to vary or to set aside the said ex-parte orders.
   
2. Upon hearing submissions from Counsels and on reading the materials before the Court, the Court will continue to restrain the first and second defendants (“defendants”) from developing the reclaimed portion of land between the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources and Maromaro; Prince Philip High Way, East Honiara, however that portion of reclaimed land may be described either by Parcel Number, Perpetual Estate Number or Survey Maps.
   
3. Similarly the claimant too will be restraint from developing the portion of land next to the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, adjacent to the reclaimed portion - Parcel Number 191-038-90.
   
4. The defendants are restraint consistent with current injunction orders issued by this Court in another Civil Case Number 150 of 2017, as confirmed in oral submissions by Counsel Fa’aitoa.
   
5. Claimant too will be restraint because; its ownership status of Parcel Number 191-038-90 is in great doubt. Counsel Togamae confirmed in oral submissions, that claimant is taking Court action to restore back its ownership status in a new Civil Claim just being filed in Court by Pitakaka Law Chambers, this morning. Ownership status and ownership restoration are issues for proper investigation at trial.
   
6. Foregoing are the most appropriate injunction orders for now, in view of the principles of law that apply in determining whether or not to grant injunctive relief in the well-known American Cyanamid case. Court consider that ownership issue or restoration of ownership, is a matter for trial in relation to PN 191-038-90. And in relation to the reclaimed land, whether a development consent was issued or not is a matter for trial. And going forward to trial the status quo must be maintained in relation to both lands. Whilst these orders are in place, parties through Counsels are encouraged to seek orders to consolidate all the proceedings that are incidental to and related to the two plots of land restraint herein.
   
7. Accordingly the orders of the Court are:-
   

7.1. Defendants are restraint from developing the reclaimed portion of land mentioned above.

7.2. Claimant is restraint from developing Parcel Number 191-038-90.

7.3. Costs in the cause.

7.4. Parties to consider consolidating all cases current in the High Court that relates to

the two disputed Parcels mentioned herein.

THE COURT

------------------------------
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE