Chinese Methodist Church in Solomon Islands Registered Trustee Inc v Registrar of Titles [2020] SBHC 119; HCSI-CC 477 of 2018 (1 December 2020)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Chinese Methodist Church in Solomon Islands Registered Trustee Inc v Registrar of Titles
Citation:
Date of decision:	1 December 2020
Parties:	Chinese Methodist Church in Solomon Islands Trustee Incorporated v Registrar of Titles,, Attorney General, Derol Ilabae, Beverly Talo and Kendal Anipoeni
Date of hearing:	28 September 2020 and 13 November 2020
Court file number(s):	477 of 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Faukona; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The Government is hereby ordered to indemnify the Claimant by reimbursing the purchase price of $270,000.00 stamp duties of $10,800.00 registry fee and other expenses incurred. 2. The compensation is to be agreed upon by the Claimant and the Second Defendant, in default of agreement, the compensation be assessed by the Court. 3. Cost of this case is to be paid by the 2nd Defendant to the Claimant. 4. Case adjourns to 11th February 2021 9:30 am for mention when the court will be addressed of any agreement reached.
Representation:	Mr. A. Radclyffe for the Claimant Ms F. Fakarii for First and Second Defendants Mr. J Iroga for the Third Defendants
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Land and Titles Act, S.230 (1) (b), S.229 (2)
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 477 of 2018

BETWEEN

CHINESE METHODIST CHURCH IN SOLOMON ISLANDS REGISTERED TRUSTEE (INCORPORATION)
Claimant

AND:

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
First Defendant

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Second Defendant

AND:

DEROL ILABAE, BEVERLY TALO AND KENDAL ANIPOENI
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 28 September 2020, and 13 November 2020
Date of Judgment: 1 December 2020

Mr A. Radclyffe for the Claimant
Ms F. Fakarii for the First and Second Defendant
Mr. J Iroga for the Third defendant

JUDGMENT

Faukona PJ: A claim in category A was filed by the Claimant on 30^th November 2018. Two reliefs in the alternative were sought. One is to rectify the register for the fixed term estate in PN: 192-004-524 in favour of the Claimant on the grounds of mistake.

2. The second relief is in the alternative that if the Court does not order rectification, an order for indemnity from Government pursuant to Section 230 (1) (b) of the Land and Titles Act and costs.

Historical background of the FTE

3. This particular parcel number 192-004-524 was part of a large parcel No: 92-004-66 which was subdivided into 13 plots by Mr Douglas Sifoni in or about 2009. The current subject FTE is one of the 13 plots. Those lands are located at Henderson area.
4. Expectedly the third Defendants were supposed to be registered as owners immediately after the High Court judgment on 29 September 2014, pursuant to the order of the High Court in Civil Case No. 196 of 2010. In fact it was an order for rectification of the register to remove Mr Sifoni’s names as owner and replacing him with the third Defendants.
5. For some unexplained reasons the Registrar of Titles did not act upon the order of the Court for rectification. Thus created somewhat unprecedented set back permitting Mr. Sifoni’s name to purportedly appear as the owner on record, which in fact not.
6. Mr. Sifoni then sold the land to Mr. Lai Hua and Ms Madlyn Laleo on the 1^st of July 2016 for a transfer consideration of $50,000.00. That transaction was endorsed by the Commissioner of lands and was registered. See fixed term estate document at page 15 of the Court Trial Book.
7. On 27^th September 2016, Mr Lai and Mrs Madlyn transferred the title to the Claimants for a consideration of $270,000.00, see document on page 10 of the court trail book.
8. Then what seemed to be the next item on page 16 of the Court book was a purported transfer to the third Defendants on 6^th November 2014, labelled as under the High Court Order in Civil Case No. 196 of 2010. That transaction is not in an orderly fashion as expected, because it could only be proper and logic that the next transaction should occur after 22^nd September 2016. Henceforth it is with no doubt that transaction was back dated.
9. Eventually the Claimant was removed from the register on an unknown date but after 3^rd May 2017.
10. The High Court order on 29^th September 2014 rectifying the land register by removing Mr Sifoni and replacing him with the 3^rd Defendant, and the negligent of duty by Registrar of Title to act promptly to the order of the court is the legal basis from which this case had arisen.
11. The Attorney-General who represented the Registrar of titles, and a party to that case, is well acquainted with the order, and it is mandatory and ought to be implemented with least possible delay. More of significant is when the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the High Court judgment.
12. Without realizing a pending legal obligation, the Registrar had sat on his responsibilities not to act instantly to comply with the Court orders. As a result the latest entry on the document on page 16 of Trial Book dates to 6^th November 2014. In fact it was entered after 3^rd May 2017, about three years and eight months after the High Court judgment, and one year and seven months after the Court of Appeal had dismissed the appeal.
13. Because of the none activation and absurd response by the Registrar of Titles, there were two transfer transactions taken place
14. Within the period until 3^rd May 2017. In both transfer transactions the Commissioner of lands had consented to and was registered by the Registrar of Titles.
15. The first transfer transaction was instituted by Mr Sifoni, a sale to Mr Lai Hua and Ms Madlyn on 30^th June 2015, about three months and nine days before the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. Nevertheless Mr Sifoni knew he lost the battle and the order was vividly crystal. What he did was evil in the making. It was an act of dishonesty and selfishness. He knew he had lost the case, yet sold and transferred the land to Mr Lai Hua and Ms Madlyn Laleo.
16. The attitude of Mr Sifoni is not such that he must obtain the consent from the 3^rd Defendants. If he were to obtain such consent he would not have sold the land. The third Defendants would have objected to. He however concealed his evil motive in order to obtain money for himself.
17. Sadly the Registrar of Titles had not acted upon the Court order in time, and Mr Sifoni’s names were still on the register. By capitalizing on that failure Mr Hua and Ms Madlyn were convinced and perhaps need not to check with Commissioner of Lands, the register will still show Mr. Sifoni as the owner.
18. The question whether the Commissioner of Lands had aware of the result of the High court judgment cannot be verified. But the Registrar should be well versed with because he was a party to that case. Hence expectation call for the Registrar should have refused to register the first transfer of the title.
19. The fact that the transfer was registered implicated either the Registrar of Titles was not a capable Public Officer, expected to perform his duties, or was a puppet of others, or a total manifestation of ignorant of his duties.
20. The transaction would have no complication if the vendors had acquired the title and the sales to the Claimants was simple and without any complication. There is argument that Claimant should have made inquiries or investigations before purchasing the land. That argument must be flawed for the reason that the title was owned and was already possessed by Mr Lai Hua and Ms Madlyn Laleo. There was no need to enquire further into lands office.
21. The facts have revealed that the first transaction was not a bona fide one for the basic reason that the Registrar of Titles had failed to rectify the register pursuant to the court order. In any event both must be condemned for lack of performance and none compliance with the Court orders.
22. The Second transaction can be perceived as bona fide purchase by the Claimant for value. FTE instrument on page 16 of the Court Trial Book indicated the last persons who held the title were Mr Lai Hua and Ms Madlyn Laleo. There is no need to investigate whether both had valid title to the land or not. Evidence by instrument had said it all. A consequent purchase by the Claimant was bona fide one.

Option for rectification

23. The first option alluded to by the Claimant is rectification of the title to the land currently held by the 3^rd Defendants. Section 229 (2) spells out that a registered land cannot be rectified...unless such owner has knowledge of the omission or mistake or caused such omission or mistake or substantially contributed to by his act, neglect or default.
24. In this case the 3^rd Defendants obtained the title by way of a Court Order, not by any other process or dealings. Consequently none of the defects attributed to by S. 229 (2) been committed by any of the 3^rd Defendants. It was a mistake solely committed by Registrar of Titles for not complying with the order of Court. If he had done so promptly in 2014 or 2015 neither of the transfers could not have taken place, the Claimant would never have acquired the title. But for what he did the Claimant had suffered loss in incurring substantial expenses.
25. I have pre-stated and would like to reiterate again the question whether the Claimant had prior knowledge of the court case is immaterial. There is no evidence to proof. However the previous owners had the titles and that made it possible for the Claimant to purchase even without any investigations.
26. I have considered the mistake made by the Registrar as substantial in nature but in my opinion cannot negate the Court order. If I should order rectification of the title then that would mean I have the jurisdiction to amend or change, which by law I have lack jurisdiction to change the decision of the Court of Appeal. Therefore the order of the Court should remain as it is. I do not think a decision to rectify the register is a proper remedy.

2nd option of indemnity

27. The second option which the Claimant claims indemnity from the Government pursuant to S.230 (1) (b) of the Land and Titles Act is more favourable in this case.
28. By negligent of duty by the Registrar of the Titles for not acting promptly to rectify the title after the Court decision had caused substantial loss for the Claimant. I noted the losses in paragraph 7 of the Claimant’s submissions.
29. The Claimant has lost the property through no fault of its own therefore is entitled to be reimbursed all the expenses incurred with cost of this proceedings. I must therefore order that Government to indemnify the Claimant of all its losses.

Orders:

1. The Government is hereby ordered to indemnify the Claimant by reimbursing the purchase price of $270,000.00 stamp duties of $10,800.00 registry fee and other expenses incurred.
2. The compensation is to be agreed upon by the Claimant and the Second Defendant, in default of agreement, the compensation be assessed by the Court.
3. Cost of this case is to be paid by the 2^nd Defendant to the Claimant.
4. Case adjourns to 11^th February 2021 9:30 am for mention when the court will be addressed of any agreement reached.

The Court.