Rahari v Tropical Greens Co Ltd [2021] SBHC 21; HCSI-CC 95 of 2021 (7 May 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Rahari v Tropical Greens Co. Ltd
Citation:
Date of decision:	7 May 2021
Parties:	Allan Rahari and Godfrey Rahari v Tropical Greens Company Limited, Burwood (SI) Limited
Date of hearing:	21 February 2021
Court file number(s):	95 of 2021
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Keniapisia; J
On appeal from:
Order:	I enter summary judgement against defendants for the reliefs claimed. Damages to be assessed. Permanent injunction against the defendants from using Ireihanua for logging related purposes. Cost against defendants.
Representation:	Mr. M Ipo for Claimant/Applicants Mr. D Lidimani for First and second Defendants/Respondents
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Local Court Act section 12 [cap 19]
Cases cited:	Solomon Islands Resources Company Ltd v Elliot Gortez and Others, HC-CC 103 of 2019 (Unreported), Majoria v Jino [2007] SBCA 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 95 of 2019

BETWEEN

ALLAN AHARI AND GODFREY RAHARI
(Representing IREIHANUA tribe

Claimants

AND:

TROPICAL GREENS COMPANY LIMITED
First Defendant

BURWOOD (SI) LIMITED
Second defendant

Date of Hearing: 21 February 2021
Date of Ruling: 7 May 2021

Mr. M. Ipo for Claimants/Applicants
Mr. D. Lidimani for First and Second Defendants/Respondents

Keniapisia; PJ

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1. Claimants represent Ireihanua tribe, of West Are’ Are, Malaita Province. Claimants seek reliefs for damages for trespass to their Ireihanua tribal land. Claimants alleged that first defendant’s felling license, A101753 does not cover their Ireihanua tribal land, situated somewhere in the interior of the mountains separating East and West Are’ Are, Malaita Province.
2. Claimants alleged that the first and second defendants (“defendants”) in the course of felling trees on first defendant’s concession land called Mairirie, they have trespassed into claimants’ Ireihanua tribal land, which shares a common border with Mairirie tribal concession land – falling under the said felling license A101753. This is a boundary dispute between Ireihanua and Mairirie tribal lands. Latter is under first defendant’s concession. Former is not – not disputed.
3. The boundary dispute was settled by a Joint Chiefs Panel comprising of Arahanimane, Mosiwara and Po’oikera Council of Chiefs. I come from the Are’ Are part of Southern region, Malaita Province. And can say that it was the right thing to do. Parties come from regions of Are’ Are that falls within the jurisdiction of these three House of Chiefs. This will avoid the argument as to biases if only Mosiwara was to preside or if only Po’oikera was to preside or if only Arahanimane was to preside. The other closest House of Chief would be Namoaraha. But the evidence does not show its involvement.
4. Claimants contend that the Joint Chiefs Panel (“JCP”) had found in their favour. That defendants have encroached into claimants’ Ireihanua tribal land. Against that finding claimants submit, the defendants together with the landowners/trustees of Mairirie concession land (defendants’ invitees) have not referred the dispute to the Local Court. Hence claimants have applied to the Court for summary judgment.
5. Claimants are of the considered view that Court should enter summary judgment for claimants on their trespass claim in respect of Ireihanua tribal land. That trespass has been established in favour of the claimants by the JCP settlement. In view of the JCP decision, defendants do not have any real prospect of defending the claim for trespass onto Ireihanua tribal land^[1].
6. Claimants relied on the JCP decision dated 3/06/2019, exhibited at Exhibit GH9, of sworn statement by Geoffrey Rahari filed on 2/07/2019. The JCP conducted a hearing at Hautahe village, East Are’ Are from 22/05/2019 – 24/05/2019. Verbal decision was made on 24/05/2019. On the 27/05/2019, defendant party (with support of Mairirie tribe land owners) called for survey, by letter in the same exhibit GH9. Survey and review was conducted on or around 11/06/2019. Not only that but the JCP acknowledged that the boundary in dispute has been known to the Chiefs of East and West Are’ Are region in the past. I take this to mean the chiefs involved in the JCP, because East and West Are’ Are has so many Chiefs. And I make mention of one such House of Chiefs above.
7. Then a written version of the JCP hearing was given on 3/06/2019. Something rather strange subsequently occurred. For Mosiwara House of Chiefs (“MHC”) purportedly attended to a subsequent review and physical survey. And found that there was no trespass (MHC decision was dated 27/06/2019). I will simply ignore this purported subsequent decision. It was a unilateral review by MHC of the prior JCP decision. Logically the JCP decision cannot be altered unilaterally by MHC. And any review must be made after hearing both parties again. So the prior JCP decision will prevail over the unilateral MHC purported decision. Counsel Lidimani relied on the MHC decision to say there are issues for trial because there are two conflicting decisions. That argument goes with my ignoring of the second MHC decision. The JCP decision is before Malaita Local Court. But not as a referral under Section 12 of Local Court Act (Cap 19), by the losing party.
8. There is a further reason I will ignore the second unilateral MHC purported decision. That the unilateral purported decision run foul against the principles of “first in time, first in right” and “funtus officio”. I used the same principles in a similar case in Isabel^[2].
9. The former principle is an equity maxim in latin described as “qui prior est tempore potion est ture” It simply means he who is first in time is first in right or applied to the facts here – the JCP decision was first in time and has first in right to be accepted over the single unilateral purported decision of MHC.
10. The later principle is a latin phrase meaning, a Court or tribunal no longer has authority or competence over a proceeding they have previously dealt with because their duties are fully accomplished. The same Court or tribunal cannot make another decision or even alter the records of its proceeding to alter its findings. What the MHC did subsequently was illogical. There must be a control over what chiefs do, when it is so illogical. So I apply the principles of law above to adopt the JCP decision over the unilateral MHC decision. There are no two conflicting decisions as Counsel Lidimani tried to make in submissions. So no more issues for trial.
11. Accordingly, the JCP decision prevails over the unilateral MHC decision. On the basis of the JCP decision, trespass was established against the logging operations of the defendants. Defendants have no real prospect of defending the trespass claim. And so the matter can terminate early through summary judgment. A party that has a Chiefs decision in its favour can rely on it, until overturned by Local Court^[3]. Defendants and their invitee Mairirie tribe are bound by the JCP decision, because since June 2019, they have not referred the JCP decision to the Local Court.
12. I enter summary judgement against defendants for the reliefs claimed. Damages to be assessed. Permanent injunction against the defendants from using Ireihanua for logging related purposes. Cost against defendants.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

---

^[1] Rule 9.57.
^[2] Solomon Islands Resources Company Ltd v Elliot Gortez and Others, HC-CC 103 of 2019 (Unreported).
^[3] Majoria v Jino [2007] SBCA 20; CA-CAC 36 of 2006 (1^st November 2007).