HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Manase v Anson Freight & Logistics Ltd 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	4 February 2019	
		
Parties: 	Thomas Manase v Anson Freight & Logistics Limited, Xiang Lins (SI) Limited, Attorney General 	
		
Date of hearing: 	31 January 2019	
		
Court file number(s): 	Civil Case Number 451 of 2017	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 	High Court of Solomon Islands 	
		
Judge(s): 	Kouhota PJ 	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The application for summary judgment is refused and dismissed. The costs of this application would be cost in the cause.	
		
Representation: 	Mr R. Dive for the Claimant 
Mr D. Nimepo for the Defendants 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Civil Procedure Rule 2007	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 451 of 2017

THOMAS MANASE
Claimant

V

ANSON FREIGHT & LOGISTICS LIMITED
First Defendant

XIANG LINS (SI) LIMITED
Second Defendant

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 31 January 2019
Date of Ruling: 4 February 2019

Mr. R Dive for the Claimant 
Mr. D Nimepo for the Defendants
RULING ON APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUGDMENT 
Brief Facts
Kouhota PJ; The applicant, Mr Thomas Manase, is the registered owner of the property parcel No. 097-013-149 situated near Nusabaruku Island, Gizo, Western Province. The 1st Defendant is the owner of Parcel No. 097-013-76 adjacent to the back of the claimant’s property.
The First Defendant on the 25th February 2016, landed its badge carrying an excavator and other machinery at the entrance of the claimant’s settlement located on Parcel No. 097-013-149. The First Defendant and its agents then using their machines cleared the entrance of the Claimant’s registered land without his knowledge or consent. The Claimant avers that the First Defendant only have a 10 meters authorized access but instead clear the access road more than 10 meters and encroach into his property.
The claim and reliefs sought
The claimant filed a category A claim on 22nd September 2017, seeking the following reliefs;
1 	An order to restrain the First and Second Defendants from causing further damage to Parcel No. 097-013-149.
2 	An order against the first and Second Defendants for trespass into registered land of the Claimant within parcel No. 097-013-149 situated near Nusabaruku Island, Gizo, Western Province.
3 	An order that the First and Second Defendants pay damages for all the mangrove resources, its ego system and its surrounding habitats that were destroyed from the registered land in parcel No. 097-013-149 by acts of trespass of the First and Second Defendants. (sic)
4 	That the First and Second Defendants is liable to pay for its act of trespass into Parcel No. 097-013-149. (sic)
5 	Costs.
6 	Any other cost the court deems fit.
The Application
The application now before the court is for summary judgment pursuant to rule 9.57, 959 and r.9.60 of the S.I. Court Civil Procedure Rules 2007. It was filed on 29th August 2018. The applicant is support of the application relied on his sworn statement filed on 10th September 2018 and the 3rd Defendant’s defence filed on 2nd May 2018.
The Law
Applications for Summary Judgment are covered under Chapter 9 of the Solomon Islands Court Civil Procedure Rules 2007. Rules 9.57 states, “the claimant may apply for a Summary Judgment where the Defendant has filed a response or a defence but the Claimant believes that the defendant does not have any real prospect of defending the claim.” Rules 9.59 and 9.60 set out the requirements which must be complied with by a claimant applying for summary judgment.
Rule 9.57 in my view, require the claimant to show the defence raised by the defendant will not tip the balance of probabilities in the defendants’ favour. In this respect it is pertinent to examine the facts asserted by the claimant against the defence filed by the defendant.
Assessment of the Facts and the Defence.
The claimant filed a category (A) claim against the 1st and 2nd defendants on 22nd September 2017 and served on the First and Second defendants’ solicitors the same day. The first and second defendants filed their defence on 31st October 2017. In their defence, the defendants denied that the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. The 1st and 2nd defendants stated in their defence that there was an approved existing 100 meter access. The 1st and 2nd defendants also stated that they never trespass into the land as the area they cleared was well within the 100 meters extension from lot 90 in front of Parcel No. 097-013-149.
Conclusion
Rule 9.66 states that the court must not give Summary Judgment if it is satisfied that there is a real dispute between the parties about a material fact. I had read the claim, the 1st and 2nd defendants defence and submission of counsel, I am satisfied there are reasonable and arguable defences in regard to access and trespass which need to be determined at a trial. The application for summary judgment is refused and dismissed. The cost of this application would be cost in the cause.
THE COURT
……………………………….
Justice E. Kouhota
Puisne Judge