Middle Islands Investment Pty Ltd v Ghiro [2017] SBHC 8; HCSI-CC 122 of 2013 (13 February 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

(Faukona, PJ)

CIVIL CASE NO.122 OF 2013

BETWEEN: MIDDLE ISLANDS INVESTMENT PTY Claimant
LIMITED

AND: BERNARD GHIRO Defendant

Date of Hearing: 13^th February 2017

Date of Ruling: 13^th February 2017

Mr W. Ghemu for the Claimant
Mr L. Kwaiga for the Defendant

RULING

Faukona PJ: This is an application filed by the Defendant on 18^th March 2015 for contempt of Court and an order maintaining the injunctive orders granted by this Court on 15^th November 2013. The issue of contempt is abandoned and hence pursuing the second limb of the application. The nature of order sought is basically to maintain the injunctive orders imposed against the Claimant, its servants and agents from carrying out any logging operations within the lands under CTR International (SI) felling licence No. A10422, until a fresh claim was filed to determine the validity of the Claimant’s felling Licence No. A101039

2.	This application was necessitated for fear that by complying with the orders, a fresh claim was filed Civil Case No. 464 of 2013 would automatically discharge the injunctive orders previously granted.
3.	In the circumstance there was no application to discharge the order by the Claimant. Yet, by responding to this application the Claimant filed an application to strike out this application.
4.	The argument by the Claimant is that as fresh claim was filed on 11th December 2013, hence, the injunctive order should be discharged. In any event, further submissions reveal that the fresh claim Civil case No. 464 of 2013 was stayed. There are no reasons given by both Counsels for the stay, though both agreed a new and fresh claim had been filed and that it was stayed.
5.	It becomes apparently clear that there were two felling licences issued for the same and one concession area. One was issued to the Claimant and the other was issued to CTP International (SI) Company Limited, a situation both Counsels agreed to. It is also clear, without dispute that the Defendant is the Director of CTP International (SI) Company limited.
6.	So the issue is that one of the above licences must be valid and legally authorized to log in the concession area and one must be invalid. There can be no two felling licences issued to operate logging activities concerning the same customary land under one concession area. Eventually I decided that the issue ought to be determined by the Commissioner of Forest who knows and was fully aware of the natures of application and for which concession areas, and which customary lands, and the boundaries of the concession area.
7.	By issuing two felling licence in respect to one and the same concession area had created hiccups and arguments and disputes between the two licence holders.
8.	In this instance I decided until the reason for stay of legal proceeding in Civil Case 464 of 2013 is clear, I consider the injunctive orders should continue to operate. Should there be changes in circumstances that will bring about in Civil Case No. 464 of 2013; the Claimant is at liberty to file an application to discharge the orders. Meantime the issue of two licences operating in one concession area concerning the same customary lands have to be decided by the Commissioner of Forests.
	Orders:
	1.	Injunction order granted on 15th November 2013 should continue to be maintained.
	2.	The Counsels should refer the case to the Commissioner Forest to resolve why two felling licences were issued for the same and one concession area concerning the same customary lands.
	3.	Cost in the cause.
	The Court.