PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Solomon Islands
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Solomon Islands >> 2019 >> [2019] SBHC 49

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Lucky Enterprises Ltd v Aiwosuga [2019] SBHC 49; HCSI-CC 32 of 2016 (31 July 2019)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS


Case name:
Lucky Enterprises Ltd v Aiwosuga


Citation:


Date of decision:
31 July 2019


Parties:
Lucky Enterprises Limited v Charles Aiwosuga and Stella Aiwosuga, Brian Surimalefo, Attorney General


Date of hearing:
21 May 2019 (supplementary written submission)


Court file number(s):
CC 32 of 2016


Jurisdiction:
Civil


Place of delivery:



Judge(s):
Keniapisia; PJ


On appeal from:


Order:
Accordingly; the LEL claim is dismissed and I uphold the Government’s counter claim
Orders LEL’s FTE title is hereby cancelled and order rectification of FTE in PN 242 in favour of the police
Parties meet their own costs




Representation:
Mr. B Upwe for the Claimant
Mr. D Nimepo for the first and second Defendants
Ms. R Soma for the third, fourth and fifth Defendants, who are claimants in the Counter Claim


Catchwords:



Words and phrases:


Legislation cited:


Cases cited:
Moveni v Cheffers [2013] SBHC 160
Hiva v Mindu [2009] SBCA 22
Iodanis v Attorney Genera [2011] SBHC 6
Maneniaru v Attorney General [2015] SBCA 16
Ki’i and Sons Constructions company Ltd v Vuvula Poultry Ltd [2017] SBHC 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION


Civil Case No. 32 of 2016


LUCKY ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Claimant


V


CHARLES AIWOSUGA AND STELLA AIWOSUGA
First Defendant


BRIAN SURIMALEFO
Second Defendant


ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Police)
Third Defendant


ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Lands)
Fourth Defendant


ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Registrar of Titles)
Fifth Defendant


Date of Hearing: 21 May 2019(Supplementary written submission)
Date of Judgment: 31 July 2019


Mr. B Upwe for the Claimant
Mr. D Nimepo for the first and second Defendants
Ms. R Soma for the third, fourth and fifth Defendants, who are claimants in the Counter Claim

JUDGMENT

  1. Lucky Enterprise Limited (LEL), bought the Fixed Term Estate (FTE) in PN 191 – 035 – 242 (PN 242) in year 2002. But has since been prevented from developing it because, first and second defendants continue to occupy the land, despite LEL requests for them to vacate[1].
  2. First and Second defendants are police officers and have occupied quarters built on the disputed land, prior to LEL acquiring the FTE in 2002. The disputed land housed police quarters, located next to Kukum Police Traffic Centre. Police officers and their families reside in the police quarters, a frog’s jump distance, from the Kukum Police Traffic Centre (KPTC).
  3. Claimant’s attempts to evict the police officers failed. So claimant filed this claim to evict police officers from the police quarters to allow claimant to develop its land into a commercial building. Claimant already obtained a loan from the Bank South Pacific.
  4. The police officers refused to move out. And the Police Commissioner (PC) has filed a counter claim, to say that the FTE in the disputed land was granted to the claimant without consultation with the police. Had there been consultation, the disputed land inclusive of the KPTC was tied to the police and wouldn’t have been given away. Acting Commissioner of Lands (COL) in 2002 made the mistake. Police Commissioner in joint enterprise with the current COL and Registrar of Titles (ROT) sought rectification of claimant’s registered FTE. Police Commissioner produced evidence[2] that police would need the disputed land for a police station expansion to accommodate future operational needs of the KPTC. The infrastructure expansion would extend to take up the disputed police quarters, now that police quarters are moved to other locations, like at Henderson, Central Guadalcanal.

Issue (s)

  1. The main issue is: “Whether the FTE registered in the name of the claimant in 2002 was obtained by mistake?” “Whether or not COL in 2002 made a mistake in granting the FTE to the claimant without consulting with the PC?” And so the registration should be rectified under Section 229 (1) of the Land and Titles Act (Cap 133) – (LTA). Although counsel have agreed on 6 issues[3] for trial, they all point to this main issue. And so I will deal with this main issue, because resolving this main issue, will resolve all the 6 issues agreed for trial.

Common Knowledge Facts – Taken Judicial Notice of

  1. Since independence, the whole of the strip of land between the road junction going up to Florence Young Christian School and the one going up to Kukum Parish Church bordering with the Kukum market, along Kukum High way, was all government quarters, housing various employees working for Government Ministries and agencies (including Honiara City Council). Then a new land use planning scheme was made in 1999/2000s to turn that strip into a commercial hub. As a result, the government quarters were dismantled. And now we have a commercial hub. A commercial hub that runs all the way up to Kukum Hot Bread, opposite to Didao Refuelling Station, along the main Kukum High way. Perhaps a commercial hub sounds too magical by comparison to commercial hubs in cities around the world. The current Kukum commercial hub actually has mostly 2 storey box buildings. The line of box buildings then have retail shop outlets on the ground floors. The ground floor shops are the usual congested Chinese shops selling the same old Chinese goods. I say box buildings, because if indeed, it is a commercial hub - then it must be developed to a standard of what we know as commercial hubs in cities around the world. The building designs should beautify the commercial hub. Not the usual box building designs that is seen all around Honiara City, with the exception of NPF buildings, ATL building and Hyundai Mall, very few buildings with good looking designs that beautify the city. Now we have a lot of commercial hubs sprouting everywhere in the city. So the current common commercial hubs in Honiara city are: Kukum High Way/Fishing village, China Town, Point Cruz, Town Ground, Rove sea front, White River first bus stop area, Burns creek and Henderson to the East of Honiara.
  2. Part of the re-zoned commercial hub is where the 1st and 2nd defendants currently reside, in police quarters, located next to the KPTC. If claimant takes away those police quarters in the name of commercial hub – then only the KPTC would be left as public property, owned by the state – for a public purpose – a police station expansion. Claimant has a plan to develop what appears to be another 2 storey box building[4]. It looks like the same old fashioned 2 storey box buildings, similar to the ones now built at Kukum commercial hub, I described in paragraph 6. And most probably would be turned into the same old fashioned Chinese shops in the City (retail shops that sells everything from groceries, to foot wear, to stationaries and to hard ware in congested shop outlets). These are common knowledge stuff in Honiara, I am talking about. The court cannot pretend to be so isolated with no knowledge, about the developments taking place in the city, a very small city.
  3. Third, Fourth and Fifth defendants (The Government) sought rectification to oust claimant’s title on the ground of mistake, in their joint counter claim. The Government say, the previous COL had made a mistake in allocating, the plots of land that currently housed police quarters. It is a mistake because the KPTC inclusive of the police quarters belong to the police. And so any decision to give away those lands must be made with prior knowledge of the police. I must direct my mind to 2002, the material time of registration of the disputed lands in the claimant’s name. This is because of the law on rectification on the ground of mistake under Section 229 (1) of the LTA. The said section relevantly states:-

Special Nature of the Disputed Lands

  1. Since independence in 1978, it is public knowledge that the disputed plots together with KPTC, were all used by the police, for police quarters and a police station. In other words, the disputed plots housed police quarters, located next to a police station (KPTC). This is what makes the disputed lands to be very special from the other government quarters that have now being eaten up by the Kukum commercial hub. Police quarter and police station, seated next to each other. The police station is the main centre for traffic operations for Honiara city. And is seated next to the main Kukum High way – what appears logically to be a perfect location for a traffic operations centre. And court heard evidence that the KPTC would be expanded to meet future operational needs of a growing police force, to cater for growing policing needs and services, of a growing Honiara city. Expansion would take up the disputed police quarters herein.
  2. So was it a mistake for the 2002 COL to give away, the police quarters which sits next to a police station? The same 2002 COL was writing in 2007 as Director of Central Property Unit (CPU), in the same Ministry of Lands where he stated with much concern “The continued sale of government houses and the uncertainty regarding legal title of the government housing portfolio is a major concern for the Solomon Island government and the task force. It was identified that the government has sold government houses without proper strategic planning and coordination with Ministries using them and there is only a limited number of government houses reserved for institutional facilities such as police, prisons and health.[5]”(underlined my emphasis)
  3. The COL in 2002 and Director of CPU in 2007 (same senior lands officer) then proposes as a remedial measure “the tying of government houses to specific ministries and agencies[6]” See other remedial measures discussed in paragraph 15.
  4. What do I gather from these piece of evidences? I gathered that it was a mistake to have given away a piece of land that was specific to a government institution as the police force, without proper planning and coordination between the police force and the COL or Lands Ministry. What I am lost for logic in is, this is the same senior lands officer who was the Acting COL in 2002 and Director of CPU in 2007.
  5. Now this land was always tied to the police force, in view of what I said in paragraphs 6 and 9. Like I said above the quarters are located next to a police station and were housing police officers. So really I should agree with the same senior lands officer that to give away a police quarter located next to a police station is indeed a serious concern to Solomon Islands government. In other words, the same senior lands officer was saying in 2007, that government through himself, made a mistake to give away the police quarters tied to the police, without consulting with the police, in 2002. How do we know the quarters were tied to the police? Because the quarters were occupied by police officers seated next to a police station. In other words the quarters and the police station are inseparable and belong to the police. Now what is the police? The police is a very important government institution charged with law and order responsibilities. We should look back to the recent April 24 2019 political riots to know the importance of the police. And for a growing city, the police needs to be physically expanded in infrastructure, to cater for future operational needs, court heard in evidence.
  6. In 2002 the facts had remained the same, as was since independence. The fact that the police station and police quarter were tied to the police and always physically sitting next to each other. So although the land may have been located within a commercial re-zoned area, it was still obvious that an important government institution like the police ought to have been consulted. The evidence before this court are there was no consultation with the police. There are evidences of subsequent remedial measures to correct the mistake in giving away PN 242 in 2002. For example an alternative site at Rove was given to LEL. If there was no mistake then there would be no remedial measures. Evidence shows other affected lands were being returned to the police (See paragraph 15). I conclude that 2002 COL made a mistake in giving away a land that was apparently needed by the police, because, it is located next to a police station. And is now being needed for future expansion to cater for operational needs of the KPTC (police). The Government has now admitted to the mistake in the counter claim.
  7. Other plots in the Kukum commercial centre needed by the police were given to Arania Enterprise Ltd, initially. But have since been surrendered back. Arania is a locally known established business entity. And would have developed its allocated land. But was willing to give the plots back to the government because the police will need it[7]. Why can’t LEL do the same thing in view of alternate site been offered to it, at Rove.[8] I note that negotiations between the Government and LEL was one reason for a long delay in this 2016 case. And that in 2016, Under Secretary of Police Ministry Mr. Maesiola wrote officially on this Rove alternative site allocated to LEL[9]. Arrangement was for LEL to surrender Kukum land and take on Rove land. This arrangement is later in time, supersedes other previous arrangements and is a final attempt to remedy what went wrong in 2002, by the Government. Parties can follow through on that arrangement.

Relevant principles of Mistake from case precedents

  1. The case of Moveni[10] says that where the COL made a mistake in the performance of his statutory functions, which results in the registration as owner of a land, of a person who should not have been registered, such registration should be set aside on the ground of mistake. Did the 2002 COL made a mistake in the granting of PN 242 to LEL? I would answer and say yes, because by Section (4) (4) of the LTA COL is duty bound to deal with interests in crown land for and on behalf of the Government. This provision imposes a statutory duty on the COL to look after and to make decisions on crown lands in the best interest of the Government, first and foremost, at all times, subject only to any special or general directions, from the Government, through the Minister. That is to say a duty is placed upon the COL by statue to look after and to make decisions on crown lands in the best interest of the Government. This makes sense because crown land is scarce and any decisions affecting crown land must be made in the best interest of the Government. The COL must weigh Government interests in decisions it takes on crown land allocations. So here where a police quarter sits next to a police station, the need becomes more apparent for the COL to make a decision that will not undermine Government interest, by consulting with the police. This duty is first and foremost, at all times, ahead of any special or general directions from the Minister or Government, that may come on from time to time, not the other way round as Counsel Upwe submitted. The 2002 Acting COL failed in this duty in view of my findings in paragraphs 9 – 15 above. The case of Iodanis[11] says that mistake may include sheer ignorance of something relevant to the transaction at hand. It is sheer ignorance that COL did not consult with police on allocation of PN 242 because the police quarters on PN 242 are seated next to a police station. Consultation with police was a relevant consideration. There ought to have been proper coordination and strategic planning between police and COL (repeat paragraphs 9 - 15). And in Hiva[12] mistake is an error of law and extends to anything improperly done, or omitted to be done. The 2002 COL made an error of law by his neglect of Section 4 (4) of LTA. By the same token, COL did an improper thing by not consulting with police in its decision to give away PN 242 (repeat paragraphs 9 – 15 above). It is sheer ignorance and an improper thing to do to deny an institution of great importance to the nation by giving away a land that was apparently needed by the police as discussed more fully above in paragraphs 9 - 15. I uphold the Government’s counter claim and found that the 2002 COL made a mistake in giving away PN 242 without proper coordination, planning and consultation with the police.
  2. It is not surprising that COL made a sheer mistake because everything happened in 8.5 hours when COL granted the FTE to Kwanae, ROT registered it in Kwanae’s name on 23/10/2002 and on the same day COL consented to transfer it to LEL and ROT registered it in LEL’s name. I heard in oral evidence that the process involved in granting of crown lands is lengthy. And if done properly will take days, months or even years as is commonly known within the Lands department. The case for the claimant is a smart one, but not a genuine and truthful one. It is smart for the 2002 COL to say in oral evidence that it is normal to grant crown land to one person in one day and to consent to transfer it to another person the same day. COL talked about the process in oral evidence as follows: Apply to COL; COL approve; COL makes an offer; Kwanae accepts offer; Kwanae makes payment; Grant prepared and signed and transfer FTE to Kwanae. And if FTE owner (Kwanae) wants to transfer to another person he apply to COL and COL consents. That is the process at COL. There is yet another process at ROT, to register the FTE in Kwanae’s name and subsequently to LEL’s name. I have not heard evidence of the ROT process. But even the process at COL sounds lengthy and bulky to be done all in one day. Unless it was prior arranged and everybody was on alert and standby; it cannot be done in one day (See paragraphs 19 and 20 below). I do not believe the smart case for the claimant. As I find in paragraphs 19 and 20 it was a scandal. Is the claimant and 2002 COL saying that before RAMSI arrival in Solomon Islands in 2003, the only efficient and effective functioning departments of the Government were the COL and ROT offices in 2002? And would I believe that, knowing where this country was prior to RAMSI arrival in 2003? And would I believe that, knowing the problems[13] that COL has with administering of crown lands, which eventually led to the 2014 LTA amendments, taking away powers from COL and now vested it in a Land Board?
  3. The case of Hiva says that Court’s power to order rectification may be broadly construed, where the circumstance of a case permits. The circumstance of this case permits that I liberally construe mistake was involved in the transaction at hand. In paragraphs 19 and 20 I found that the whole transaction lacks genuineness from the very beginning. And the key players are: COL; ROT; Kwanae and LEL. So LEL cannot avoid rectification under the protections of Section 229 (2) LTA, as discussed in paragraphs 19 and 20.

Can LEL benefit from the protections under Section 229 (2) of the LTA?

  1. The next question I need to answer is: “Was the claimant a bona-fide purchaser, who bought the land for valuable consideration, without knowledge of the mistake. This is a protection afforded to a bona-fide purchaser under Section 229 (2) of LTA. There is no issue that LEL obtained PN 242 for valuable consideration of $30,000.00 from Mr. Kwanae. The issue is whether LEL was a bona-fide purchaser in the sense that it had no knowledge of the mistake made in connection with the registration in its name? Mr. Tang for claimant says in oral evidence, he was long time resident of Honiara. That he drove past the Kukum police station many times. And so I conclude that like every long-time resident of Honiara, we all know or ought to have known about KPTC and the adjacent Kukum police quarters. I find that claimant substantially contributed to the mistake by his own act, neglect or default. I repeat being a long-time resident of Honiara, he ought to have knowledge about the quarters being in close proximity to a police station. And ought to have taken extra care. I found on the evidence that claimant, 2002 COL, 2002 ROT and Mr. Kwanae have hatched a premeditated plan to take away a land that was special to the people of Solomon Islands through their police. That well thought-out plan rolled out with ease, within the blink of an eye, in one day. In one day COL transferred FTE in PN 242, ROT registered it to Mr. Kwanae and on the same day COL consent to transfer of the same FTE and ROT registered it to LEL. I accept that COL transferred FTE and ROT registered it to Kwanae’s name on 23rd October 2002. But I found it difficult to comprehend how COL consent to transfer of the same FTE to be registered to LEL the same day of 23rd October 2002. If COL has granted the FTE to Kwanae on 23/10/2002; then how on earth did Kwanae found out instantly in the same day, a willing and ready buyer – LEL, the claimant? It was all well planned. Everyone was on standby and on alert on the same day of 23/10/2002 to complete a transaction involving 2 different government offices, between two different persons in one day. One day sounds too big. I should say only in 8.5 hours. Government offices open between 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. I find LEL was part of a premeditated plan and ought to have knowledge about the special nature of this land – being located next to KPTC. I do not believe that any prudent business man would buy a land without knowing exactly where that land is in this small city.
  2. If indeed the disputed parcel was meant for commercial development, then why was it given to the little known Joseph Kwanae, at the first place? Honiara is a very small place and we know the established local business entrepreneurs. I am convinced on the evidence that Joseph Kwanae is a middle man for LEL. Kwanae as a middle man did miracle to accomplish a mission impossible in 8.5 hours. This whole transaction was not done in good faith but the work of a smart middle man, teaming up with senior lands officers. If it was genuine then COL should have given the land to an established entrepreneur in the first place, to develop it into the intended commercial hub. The little known Kwanae was not such entrepreneur. For he got it in 8.5 hours and transfer it again to LEL inside the same limited time. This does not show genuineness, on the part of COL. If indeed COL says the disputed land was inside of a commercially re-zoned area, then he should have given it to a genuine business man/house/entrepreneur in the first place. Kwanae is not such genuine business entity/person to have got it in a day and gave it away the same day (8.5 hours only). Kwanae got it at a much cheaper price ($18,000.00)[14] and sold it at a much higher price of ($30,000.00)[15] – a clear case of a land opportunist. Kwanae got rich in 8.5 hours. I have evidence that doubts whether Kwanae had actually applied for this plot at Kukum[16]. No evidence that Kwanae apply for PN 242. No evidence that COL offered PN 242 to Kwanae. What we have is a grant instrument[17] only. This whole transaction lacks genuineness right from the very beginning – from Mr. Kwanae. I find LEL as a team player in that whole transaction, which lacks genuineness. If it is not genuine, then why deprive an important institution such as the police, of a land, that will apparently be needed for a police station expansion? I say apparent because the police is a growing force. As the city grows so will the police. And you cannot take land away from the police in this scandalous way. I found that ROT was a key team player in the mistake and the team captain was COL. So I can conclude that the COL’s mistake led to the registration of PN 242 in LEL’s name. There is established a link between mistake and registration to warrant rectification under Section 229 (2) of LTA – a requirement under Maneniaru[18] case.
  3. The other protection that the claimant must satisfy under Section 229 (2) of LTA, so as to escape the rectification power by the court is: claimant is in possession. There is no dispute that claimant is not in actual possession. Even so counsel for claimant submitted that claimant is not in actual possession, but continued paying rentals. Claimant could not develop its land because he was prevented by officers of the 3rd defendant. Claimant also activated its protective seal by instigating this claim for eviction. Claimant rely on the case of Ki’i and sons construction[19] to argue that LEL is denied actual possession by actions of trespassers – 1st and 2nd defendants. I can distinguish Ki’i and sons’ construction by the fact that the land in Ki’i was at the first place occupied by trespassers, thereby preventing the bona-fide purchaser (Vuvula) and even previous owner (Winner properties Ltd) of actual possession. Here the police officers were not trespassers at the first place (prior to 23/10/2002). They only became trespassers after 23/10/2002. They only became trespassers after a non bona-fide purchaser teamed up with other land speculators (repeat 19 and 20). So the law remain the same as in Moveni that to benefit from the protection under Section 229 (2) of LTA on the element of possession, LEL must be in actual physical possession of PN 242. LEL is not. So cannot benefit from this element of protection under Section 229 (2).
  4. To answer issue No 5, the lands along the main Kukum High way and in particular the Kukum area is legally a commercial zone under the Honiara Local Planning Scheme 2015 (HLPS 2015). Not in 2002. What does the HLPS 2015 mean for PN 242 been retained by the police, because I already found mistake was involved in giving it to LEL in 2002. A decision on what it means I will leave to the Government and its relevant agencies. But let me say something on logic and common sense. In Honiara we have 3 constituencies: West, Central and East. We have White River Police station, Rove Police Headquarters and the Central Police Station all in West Honiara. We have a police station in China town next to the dental clinic, at the Mataniko Bridge, Central Honiara. In East Honiara we have Kukum and Naha Police Stations. As the city grows, so will the need grow for police services. Provision of police services needs physical infrastructures. Police wants to expand the KPTC. East Honiara is the largest constituency in Honiara, according to April 2019 electoral roll. East Honiara will need an expanded KPTC. I have not seen in the HLPS 2015 any prohibition to build a police station or to expand KPTC. Evidence by Alphonsus only says residential buildings are prohibited[20]. I would think that an expanded police station seated next to a commercial hub, is a welcoming announcement for business houses in Kukum commercial hub, or indeed East Honiara. Business houses will feel secure operating next to an expanded police station. We already have more than enough of congested Chinese shops selling the same old Chinese goods. East Honiara has more than adequate shops at Kukum commercial hub, all the way up to Fishing village, Panatina plaza, Ranadi, King George and Capital Park complex at Burns creek, to serve its shopping needs and services. There are many more small retail shops at every corner of East Honiara suburbs and residential areas. We need to maintain 2 police stations for East Honiara constituency. And indeed we need a bigger one at KPTC. The one at Naha has been expanded recently, under donor funding.
  5. To conclude I found that it was a mistake to have given away PN 242 to LEL, without consulting with the police in 2002. That PN 242 must now be returned to the police. And the necessary cancellation will be effected by the relevant government offices. The COL was careless to give away PN 242 in 8.5 hours in 2002, without consideration for Government best interests as required under Section 4 (4) of the LTA. Government best interests dictates that consultation ought to have been made with the police, because the quarters are seated next to a police station. This whole transaction was not done in good faith or not genuine. That is to say there was no sincerity of intentions. There was no fairness, no openness and no honest dealings by the key players: COL, ROT, Kwanae and LEL in the allocation of this crown land (PN 242). When a property passes from two separate owners in 8.5 hours, what good faith or genuineness should one expect? And like I found, it was a scandal to take away land from the state in this way. Government can always use its powers to acquire PN 242 for public purpose. But that power may not be exercised, now that I will order rectification.
  6. Accordingly; the LEL claim is dismissed and I uphold the Government’s counter claim and order as follows:

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

[1] See Agreed Facts 1 (i), (ii) and (iii) on page 287-288 of Court Book.
[2] See statement of Mostyn Mangau at page 290 – 291 of Court Book and oral evidence given in court by the same senior police officer. See also paragraph 9 of statement by Mr. Tang at page 4 of Court Book.
[3] Agreed issues are at page 288 of Court Book.
[4] Sworn statement of Mr. Tang at pages 108 – 109 of Court Book – at paragraph 5.
[5] See paragraph 1 of letter at page 280 of Court Book.
[6] See paragraph 2 of same letter in foot note 5.
[7] See page 284 of Court Book.
[8] See page 286 of Court Book.
[9] Repeat evidence at foot note 8.
[10] Moveni v Cheffers [2013] SBHC 160; HCSI-CC 107 of 2011 (20th December 2013); at paragraph 15 paraphrased.
[11] Iodanis v Attorney General & Others [2011] SBHC 6, High Court Civil Case 408 of 2009.
[12] Hiva v Mindu [2009] SBCA 22; Civil Appeal 13 of 2008 (23rd July 2009)
[13] This court is bogged down with COL’s problems like - delay in allocations, double allocations, mistake and fraud allocations etc.
[14] Page 114 Court Book – Grant Consideration.
[15] Page 114 Court Book – Transfer Consideration.
[16] See page 274 Court Book – hand written notes on the letter.
[17] See page 254 – 257 Court Book.
[18] Maneniaru v Attorney General [2015] SBCA 16; SICOA-CA 39 of 2014 (9th October 2015).
[19] Kii and Sons Constructions Company Ltd v Vuvula Poultry Ltd [2017] SBHC 17; HCSI-CC 264 of 2013 (16th March 2017).
[20] See statement by Alphonsus Osifo’oa, at page 141 Court Book, at paragraph 6.

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2019/49.html