PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Solomon Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Solomon Islands >> 2021 >> [2021] SBHC 83

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

Naisi v Western Province Customary Land Appeal Court [2021] SBHC 83; HCSI-CC 298 of 2012 (1 October 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS


Case name:
Naisi v Western Province Customary Land Appeal Court


Citation:



Date of decision:
1 October 2021


Parties:
Gilisi Naisi and Edrick Luna v Western Province Customary Land Appeal Court, Premier of Western Province, Commissioner of Forest Resources, Royce Alekevu, David Alekevu, Shane Tutua, Kilven Benny, Opportunity Kuku and Joshua Leti, Earth Movers Solomons Limited, Attorney General


Date of hearing:
10 September 2021


Court file number(s):
298 of 2012


Jurisdiction:
Civil


Place of delivery:



Judge(s):
Keniapisia; PJ


On appeal from:



Order:
Cost against the defendants to be assessed if not agreed. I will assess costs


Representation:
Mr. Lepe for the Claimants/Applicants
No Appearance for First, Second, Third and Sixth Defendants
Mr. Dive for the Fourth and Fifth Defendants/Respondents


Catchwords:



Words and phrases:



Legislation cited:



Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION


Civil Case No. 298 of 2012


BETWEEN


GILISI NAISI AND EDRICK LUNA
(Representing the Dekurana Tribe of North New Georgia)
Claimants


AND:


WESTERN PROVINCE CUSTOMARY LAND APPEAL COURT
First Defendant


AND:


PREMIER OF WESTERN PROVINCE
(Representing the Western Provincial Executive)
Second Defendant


AND:


COMMISSIONER OF FOREST RESOURCES
Third Defendant


AND:


ROYCE ALEKEVU, DAVID ALEKEVU, SHANE TUTUA, KILVEN BENNY, OPPORTUNITY KUKU AND JOSHUA LETI
Fourth Defendant


AND:


EARTH MOVER SOLOMONS LIMITED,
Fifth Defendant


AND:


ATTORNEY GENERAL
Sixth Defendant


Date of Hearing: 10 September 2021
Date of Ruling: 1 October 2021


Mr. Lepe for the Claimants/Applicants
No Appearance for First, Second, Third and Sixth Defendants
Mr. Dive for the Fourth and Fifth Defendants/Respondents


Keniapisia; PJ

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR-SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND JOINDER

Introduction

  1. Claimants applied for Summary Judgment (“SJ”) on 31/08/2020. Claimants also applied to join New Venture Limited on 23/10/2020. I heard both applications today. If I should grant the application for SJ, that will terminate this proceeding early. And the application for joinder will become meaningless. Logically, I should consider the SJ application first.
  2. The major historical facts about the progress of this case shows the following:-
(iii) High Court’s Justice Apaniai ordered on 26/08/2013, that the amended JRC be adjourned generally. That Civil Appeal Case Nos. 04 & 05 of 2011 be remitted back to Western Customary Lands Appeal Court (“WCLAC”) to re-determine claimants appeal according to law. And the injunction orders made on 22/02/2013, shall remain in force until Civil Appeal Case Nos. 04 & 05 of 2011 have been reheard or until further orders. The remittal order was perfected on 30/08/2013.[1]
(iv) Following High Court’s remittal, WCLAC, in a much delayed re-hearing, made its written decision on the 6/04/2020[2], almost 7 years later. The written decision of WCLAC on 6/04/2020 meritoriously resolved the reliefs claimants sought in this amended JRC.
(v) Following the WCLAC decision of 6/04/2020, claimants have applied for SJ, in the strong belief that 4th and 5th defendants’ defences do not have any real prospect[3] of defending claimants claim. That there are no more “contested issues to go to trial”[4] because the core reliefs sought in the amended JRC have been meritoriously resolved by the WCLAC decision of 6/04/2020.
  1. The core reliefs sought in this amended JRC filed on 18/09/2013 are:-
  2. The Western Provincial Executive (“WPE”) determined that the 4th defendants are the lawful trustees for any timber rights grant over HCL on or around 10/8/2011[5]. Claimants were aggrieved by the said determination. Claimants filed an appeal to WCLAC in Civil Appeal Case Nos. 4 & 5 of 2011. The WCLAC heard claimants appeal and made a decision on or around 22/06/2012. The WCLAC decision upheld the WPE determination, affirming that the 4th defendants still remain the lawful trustees over HCL. Claimants were aggrieved and filed this JRC as amended on 18/09/2013. Core reliefs sought in the amended JRC are summarised above in paragraph 3.
  3. As part of High Court’s efforts to progress the amended JRC to conclusion, it made orders for the WCLAC to re-hear and re-determine claimants appeal in Civil Appeal Case Nos. 04 & 05 of 2011, according to law. Note that “core relief” 1 above seeks High Court to quash the WCLAC decisions in Civil Appeal Case Nos 4 & 5 of 2011. In obedience to the High Court orders, the WCLAC reconvened, re-heard and re-determined claimants appeal in Civil Appeal Case Nos. 04 & 05 of 2011 according to law. And after around 7 years on 6/04/2020, the WCLAC quashed the WPE determination of trustees made on or around 10/8/2011. That means the 4th defendants are no longer the trustees lawfully entitled to grant timber rights over HCL effective from 6/04/2020. That also means that any timber rights the 4th defendants may have granted to anybody (5th defendant or any other companies), via the execution of any Form 4 standard logging agreements, from 22/06/2012 and 6/04/2020, will have no legal effect. It also means any license issued over HCL pursuant to the timber rights acquisition process instigated by the 4th and or 5th defendants are null and void and will consequently have to be quashed. A license without a valid Form 4 standard logging agreement is a bare license. The license that 4th and 5th defendants are banking on currently is a bare license. For the trustees who gave the Form 4 standard logging agreement, resulting in the license, have been removed by the decision of WCLAC dated 6/04/2020.
  4. A further fatal implication is that the “core reliefs” sought in the amended JRC have been meritoriously determined by the decision of WCLAC dated 6/04/2020. Hence there are no further real issues or real disputes[6] about the material facts underpinning the core reliefs sought to warrant trial. The WCLAC decision of 6/04/2020, does not run in conflict with the earlier WCLAC decision made on 22/6/2012, as counsel Dive has submitted[7]. Effectively the 6/04/2020 decision of the WCLAC is a decision of the High Court, made in this amended JRC. For the WCLAC decision of 6/04/2020 was made in accordance with the orders of Apaniai J perfected on 30/08/2013.
  5. Consequently, I will answer the core reliefs sought in the amended JRC as follows:-

Conclusion

  1. The final analysis is that there are no further contentious issues for this Court to investigate at trial. Fourth and fifth defendants’ defences do not have a real prospect of defending the claimants’ amended JRC. I will therefore terminate this proceeding early via SJ. Claimants and 4th defendants may go back and re-organise to pursue logging on HCL, if they so wish, because they have equal rights of ownership over the said land. This is the same recommendation contained in the decision of WCLAC dated 6/04/2020, when WCLAC declined to make a conclusion on trustees, only saying, parties need to go back and sort themselves out before any further development takes place. That is a wise proposal for parties to think through. Probably with the passage of time, the wounds (if any) would have healed. And parties can now work together. Cost against the defendants to be assessed if not agreed. I will assess costs.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE


[1] Copy of perfected order on Pages 87 - 88, of claimants’ court book.
[2] Copy of decision at Page 95 – 96 of claimants’ court book.
[3] See Rule 9.57.
[4] Rule 9.66.
[5] See copy of WPE determined trustees (4th defendants herein) at Page 78 - 79 sworn statement of Gilisi filed on 18/03/2021
[6] Rule 9.66.
[7] See Page 85 - 91, sworn statement of Gilisi filed on 18/03/2021 – for copy of earlier WCLAC decision dated 22/06/2012.


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2021/83.html