Pitakaka v Greenland Enterprises Ltd [2017] SBHC 69; HCSI-CC 283 of 2016 (8 September 2017)

CAMERON PITAKAKA, & -V- GREENLAND
OTHERS (Claimant) ENTERPRISES LTD
AND: DAVID PITISOPA & (2^nd Defendant)
OTHERS (1^ST Defendant)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(BROWN J)

Civil Case No. 283 of 2016

Date of Hearing and Decision: 8 September 2017

R. Tovosia for Claimant
M. Tagini for Defendant

Brown J:

Application to strike out claim as disclosing no cause of action

The timber rights hearing recorded on the 22 February 2011 showed Wesley Bingo and Cameroon Pitakaka amongst those named as listed landowners of Paleka land sought to be logged by Greenland Enterprise. It would seem the application was approved and a logging licence subsequently issued.

What has happened since is that others, together with both named landowners, now seek this courts assistance to recover moneys which should have been paid for royalties by the company, moneys they say have not been accounted for.

The record of the Executive hearing went on to name by Form II, 12 persons representative of all landowners of the concession area. These representatives [sometimes called trustees], were able to enter into a logging agreement presumably with Greenland Enterprise Ltd to log the land.

To some what confuse the issue, the Executive recorded that particular persons representing the three clans, Kamaga, Ourusu and Nunubejuku were authorized by the landowners to open three accounts into which all royalty payments were to be made.

Some 4 individuals were named for the respective clans. For Kamaga clan, Mebily Pitadunga, Don Wilfred Dorovoga, John Laurie & Ceril Lilavamutu were to be the account holders.

Amongst these named as found by the Provincial Executive able to grant timber rights were Gavin Taniveka and David Pitisopa. It is this David Pitisopa who is named as a defendant by these aggrieved landowners, including Wesley Bingo & Cameron Pitakaka.

I am also told that so far as the Claimant is aware no moneys are in the bank account presumed by the Executive.

The remaining defendant David Pitisopa says all moneys due under the logging agreement have been distributed to those entitled, including these claimants.

I am not concerned to see whether there has been conflict caused by any purported payment to this separate bank account or by payment to the trustees or representatives under the Form IV logging agreement, rather I am concerned to see whether I have power to enquire into the alleged distribution of royalty moneys under the Form IV and sharing by custom amongst those entitled.

I am not concerned with the Form IV agreement.

I am faced with an claim to a share of royalty payments as evidenced by the defense filed. The representative claims to rely on the customary rights of primary holders by patrilineal descent. The implied explanation is that any payments made to these claimants have followed that custom.

If a determination of the fairness of distribution is to be carried out it must be carried out by a tribunal having jurisdiction in custom to address this question.

The court does not have jurisdiction to determine matters of custom. The appropriate tribunal would appear to be the House of Chief concerned for that area.

The Claimants unfortunately have not shown a cause of action whereby this court may exercise jurisdiction

The proceedings are struck out pursuant to Rule 9.7(b).

Costs shall follow the event.

The Claimants shall pay the Defendants costs on the 3^rd schedule.

.......................................
Brown J