Pule v Siporoti [2017] SBHC 93; HCSI-CC 100 of 2017 (27 September 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 100 of 2017

BETWEEN: VICTOR PULE
(Representing the Kakau Tagasagina Clan) - Claimant

AND: DUDDLEY SIPOROTI, TALONA SIPOROTUI, - Defendants
CHARLES ME’E AND JOHN ME’E

Date of Hearing: 15^th September 2017.
Date of Ruling: 27^th September 2017.

Ms. Alice Willy for the Claimant.
No Appearance for the Defendants.

KENIAPISIA; PJ:

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Claimant filed a Category A claim on the 21/3/2017. Claimant also filed a supporting sworn statement (ss) the same day. Defendants filed their defence on 18/5/2017. Reply filed on 20/6/2017. Claimant applied for Summary Judgment (SJ) on 27/7/2017. Court is of the view that this case must move, notwithstanding defendants’ slackness. Court is satisfied defendants had notice but are not interested to take part in this case. Defendants have not been actively taking part in this proceeding after filing a defence.
   
2. Application for SJ is a way to bring to an early ending, a proceeding without going to trial. Early endings to proceedings are governed under Chapter 9 of the Rules.
   
3. Claimant is applying for SJ on the basis of his claim filed 21/3/2017. Claimant says that, he believes the defendants do not have any real prospect of defending his claim, on the basis of the defendants defence filed 18/5/2017 or that the defendants have no arguable defence.
   

The Law

4. I first remind myself of the principles of law to apply in deciding whether or not to grant SJ without trial. The principles are in the Rules. They include: SJ will not be granted if there is an issue for investigation or if there are real issues for contention, then a trial is warranted to test those issues^[1]; whether the party opposing SJ has an arguable defence; or in the claimant’s perspective the defendant has no arguable defence^[2]; or in the defendant’s perspective the claimant’s claim or part of it has no real prospect of succeeding;^[3] or that the claimant believes the defendant does not have any real prospect of defending the claimant’s claim.^[4] To succeed in an application for SJ, the applicant’s case must be based on clear evidence or cogent evidence or strict proof of the facts pleaded in the claim or defence^[5] as the case may be. This is why the Rule calls for the applicant for SJ or the opposing party to file a ss verifying the facts in the claim or defence^[6] as the case may be. Case law authorities^[7] have also applied these principles. With these principles in mind, I now consider the claimant’s application for SJ.
   

Claimant’s claim

5. This claim is for ownership, possession and eviction of defendants from the claimant’s customary lands described as Ade, Sara, Tuavoka, Vatutuguru and Kosa on Ngella, Central Province (claimant’s 5 tribal or clan lands).
   
6. Claimant says that his clan owns the 5 tribal lands on Ngella as per a Chiefs decision, that his father, late Robert Pule won against the defendant party (Harry Tupa) to whom the defendants are closely related as blood family members.
   
7. Claimant’s tribal or clan ownership of the 5 tribal lands is anchored in a Chief’s decision that goes back to 1989. The 1989 case went before the Ngella House of Chiefs. The case was between Fr. Pule and Harry Tupa and his group of Boromole village, who are of Gaubata Clan^[8]. Chiefs found Fr. Pule’s party of Tagasagina Kakau Clan as the rightful owners in custom of the 5 tribal lands. Harry Tupa and his group did not appeal the 1989 Chief’s decision to the Local Court.
   
8. Claimant is the first born son of late Fr. Pule whose clan won before the 1989 Chiefs Court. Harry Tupa is related to the defendants. Duddley Sipiroti and Charles Me’e are nephews of late Harry Tupa. Talona Siporotui is the son of Duddley Sipiroti. John Me’e is the son of Charles Me’e, the evidence has shown^[9].
   
9. The 1989 Chiefs decision bound the parties to this proceeding. It was never challenged through the legislative framework put in place by Parliament; Local Court – Customary Lands Appeal Court – High Court (on points of law only). Therefore this Court can rely on the 1989, Ngella House of Chiefs decision as evidence of or authority for ownership in custom over the 5 tribal lands.
   

Arguable Defence?

10. As to ownership of the 5 tribal lands; there can be no arguable defence in this Court, unless there is setting aside of the 1989 Chiefs decision utilizing the appropriate forum. It follows that, the defendants do not have an arguable defence for ownership over the 5 tribal lands against the claimant’s clan. Defendants tried to raise in defence that they did not have notice of the 1989 hearing. That is a good appeal ground to Local Court, not this Court. Defendants tried to raise a defence that they belong to a different tribe (Hongi Kiki Tribe, not Gaubata), but that is not what the 1989 decision says. The 1989 decision says defendants are from Gaubata clan. Defendants tried to say in defence that they own the 5 tribal lands as Hongi Kiki tribe. That is not what the 1989 decision says. There is no other Chiefs decision before me, in evidence.
    

Conclusion

11. Accordingly, Court is satisfied that there is no issue for trial as between claimant’s clan (Tagasagina Kakau clan) and defendants’ clan (Gaubata clan) in regards to ownership of the 5 tribal lands. In other words the defendants do not have a real prospect of defending this claim or that there is a real prospect of the claimant’s claim succeeding.
    
12. The orders of the Court are:-
    

12.1. Summary Judgment is entered for the claimant in the terms of the reliefs sought in the category A claim filed 21/3/2017.

12.2. Cost to the claimant.

12.3. Damages to be separately assessed.

THE COURT

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

---

^[1] See Rule 9.66.
^[2] See Rule 9.64 (a).
^[3] See Rule 9.64 (a).
^[4] See Rule 9.57.
^[5] See Rule 9.59 (a) or Rule 9.61 (a), as the case may be.
^[6] Rule 9.59 (a) or 9.61 (a), as the case may be.
^[7] John Brown and Others –v- New World Limited – cc 66/2013 and Solomon Islands Home Finance Limited –v- Jack Kaota and Another – cc 259/2012 (Unreported judgments).

^[8] Chiefs’ decision at Exhibit VB 1 of Victor Pule ss filed 21/03/2017.
^[9] See ss by Pule filed 23/03/2017.