Keniano v Haruhou [2022] SBHC 103; HCSI-CC 382 of 2016 (29 August 2022)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Keniano v Haruhou
Citation:
Date of decision:	29 August 2022
Parties:	Joana Keniano, Rebecca Honila, Betty Waratane and Francis Keniherea v Vincent Haruhou, Venasio Waikiri, Isaac Parahere, & Harold Kausimae, MP Holdings Limited, Grace Logging Limited
Date of hearing:	21 July 2022
Court file number(s):	382 of 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Kouhota, PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	I therefore order that the Defendants pay the Claimants a sum of SBD 11,448,638.70 for trespass to land & environmental damages, destruction of tabu sites and conversion of trees/logs. Cost for the Claimant/Applicant to be tax if not agreed.
Representation:	Mr M Ipo for the Claimant/ Respondent Mr R Dive for the Defendant/ Applicants
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 382 of 2016

BETWEEN

JOANA KENIANO, REBECCA HONILA, BETTY WARATANE AND FRANCIS KENIHEREA
Claimant

AND:

VINCENT HARUHOU, VENASIO WAIKIRI, ISAAC PARAHERE, & HAROLD KAUSIMAE
First Defendants

AND:

MP HOLDINGS LIMITED
Second Defendant

AND:

GRACE LOGGING LIMITED
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 21 July 2022
Date of Ruling: 29 August 2022

Mr. M Ipo for the Claimant/ Respondent
Mr R Dive for the Defendant/ Applicants

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

Kouhota PJ

The Claimants on 31^st August 2016 filed a category (A) claim seeking damages against all 3 Defendants for trespass, conversion of timbers environmental destruction and destruction to ancestral and sacred sites on Toroapu Customary Land in West Are’Are. On 8^th June 2017 the Court gave Judgment in favour of Claimants and order that damages will be assessed against the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants to include damages for conversion of trees, environment destruction and desecrated sacred site. Brown J in his judgment said “I give judgment for the claimants for trespass in damages to be assessed, against the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd defendants, such damages to include damages for conversion of tress, environmental destruction and desecrated sites”

On 12^th June 2019 the Claimant filed an application for assessment of damages. While the application was pending the First Defendant on the 10^th August 2020 filed an application to stay the assessment hearing. That application was dismissed on 28^th August 2020 making way for this application to proceed. In moving this application Mr Sariki for Claimant submitted that they relied on the materials listed on paragraph 14 of the Claimant’s submission. Counsel also referred to a number of case authorities dealing with issue of assessment of damages in this jurisdiction. The total assessment cost based on the expert assessment is SBD 11,448.638.70 made up of the following;

1. Trespass to land & environmental damages destruction/tabu sites SBD 7,004,480.00
2. Conversion of trees/logs SBD 4,444,558.70

Counsel for the 1^st and 3^rd Defendant/Respondent attack the credibility of the assessment report and that the report was produced after 2 years and the delay affects the accuracy of the report and its reliability to confirm the actual damages that allegedly happened.

Defendant counsel also submit that the report was not an independent report as it was carried out without the involvement of the Defendant. Counsel also submit that despite the report by a Senior Forest Officer, the Commissioner of Forest did not authorised the conduct of the assessment. The Claimants denied Defendant assertions and says the reports were made following formal request to the Ministries.

While the Defendants disputed the assessment report, they did not file any assessment report of their own to contradict the Forestry and Environment report they are disputing. The order for assessment of damages was made in 2017 and the Defendant have sufficient time to get an assessment of their own if they want to dispute or believe the assessment report by the Forestry and Environment is not reliable. While the Defendant assert that the Commissioner of Forest did not authorise the conduct of the assessment. There was evidence that the Commissioner had authorised the officer who carried out the assessment reports. All that the Defendant are doing now is making mere assertions. The Court does not accept assertions without evidence. Having considered the materials before the Court I am satisfied that the Forest and Environment reports are reliable. I therefore order that the Defendants pay the Claimants a sum of SBD 11,448,638.70 for trespass to land & environmental damages, destruction of tabu sites and conversion of trees/logs. Cost for the Claimant/Applicant to be tax if not agreed.

THE COURT
JUSTICE EMMANUEL KOUHOTA
PUISNE JUDGE