You are here:
PacLII >>
Databases >>
High Court of Solomon Islands >>
2023 >>
[2023] SBHC 95
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
Abana v Kasiano [2023] SBHC 95; HCSI-CC 719 of 2021 (22 August 2023)
HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Case name: | Abana v Kasiano |
|
|
Citation: |
|
|
|
Date of decision: | 22 August 2023 |
|
|
Parties: | Willie Abana v Francis Kasiano, Godwin Rikimae, Max Bobby, Jackson Seni, Reuben Are, David Niui and Marlon Are |
|
|
Date of hearing: | 28 July 2023 |
|
|
Court file number(s): | 719 of 2021 |
|
|
Jurisdiction: | Civil |
|
|
Place of delivery: |
|
|
|
Judge(s): | Bird; PJ |
|
|
On appeal from: |
|
|
|
Order: | I hereby hold that the appeal is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of the court and I dismiss it under rule 9.75 (c) of
the CPR. In view of that order, I need not rule on the application of the applicants for joinder. I hereby refer all interested parties
to commence land dispute proceeding before the relevant house of chiefs for determination on the ownership of Manu customary land
under s.12 of the Local Courts Act. I hereby order accordingly. |
|
|
Representation: | Mr Simon Fiuta for the Appellant Mr Ben Etomea for the First Respondent No Appearance for the Second and third Defendant Mr Nickson K Sariki for the fourth Respondent Mr Michael Ipo for the Applicants for Joinder |
|
|
Catchwords: |
|
|
|
Words and phrases: |
|
|
|
Legislation cited: | Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r 16.10 and 16.11, Land and Titles Act S 256 [cap 133] Local Court Act [cap 19] S 12, |
|
|
Cases cited: |
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Case No. 719 of 2021
BETWEEN
WILLIE ABANA
Appellant
AND:
FRANCIS KASIANO
First Defendant
AND:
GODWIN RIKIMAE
Second Defendant
AND:
MAX BOBBY
Third Respondent
AND:
JACKSON SENI
Fourth Respondent
AND:
REUBEN ARE, DAVID NIUI AND MARLON ARE
(Representing the Descendants of Kaumanu, West Kwara’ae, Malaita Province)
Joinder Applicants
Date of Hearing: 28 July 2023
Date of Decision: 22 August 2023
Mr Simon Fiuta for the Appellant
Mr Ben Etomea for the First Respondent
No appearance for the Second and Third Defendant
Mr Nickson K Sariki for the Fourth Respondent
Mr Michael Ipo for the Applicants for Joinder
RULING
Bird PJ:
- The substance of this matter stems out from a notice of appeal to this court against the decision of the Malaita Customary Land Appeal
Court (MCLAC) dated 12 November 2021. The land in issue is Manu customary land situated in West Kwara’ae, Malaita Province.
- The application that this court must determine at this stage is the application of the applicants filed on 9 March 2023 for joinder
pursuant to rule 16.10 and 16.11 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (CPR).
- During the hearing of the application for joinder, the court had enquired about the land court decisions that brought about this
appeal. The court was informed by counsel for the parties to this appeal that there was no decision that had effectively awarded
ownership of Manu customary land to any of the parties to this appeal. I am informed that the chief’s decision dated 4 December
2020 awarded ownership of Manu customary land to the fourth respondent.
- A referral was made to the Malaita Local Court (MLC) by the first respondent. On 23rd August 2021, the MLC set aside the decision of the chiefs dated December 2020 and the referral was dismissed. Being aggrieved with
that decision, the current appellant lodged an appeal to the MCLAC the MCLAC heard the appellant’s appeal on 4 November 2021
and delivered its judgment on 12 November 2021. The MCLAC dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the MLC dated 23 August
2021. They further upheld the decision of the MLC in part whereby quashing order 2 of the decision of the MLC. So as per the MLC
decision and the MCLAC decision, there is no decision in respect of the ownership of Manu customary land as between the parties to
this appeal to date.
- I have noted from discussions by the MLC and the MCLAC in their respective judgments on the issue that there is pending before this
court an appeal in Civil Case 99 of 2017. My own investigation in that case reveals that the lawyers involved are Mr Iroga, as well
as a lawyer from the Public Solicitors Office and a lawyer from the Attorney General’s Chambers. That appeal is still pending
resolution by this court. It was last mentioned on 9 November 2021 and has been store away for non-prosecution. The matter is an
appeal from the decision of the Magistrate Court on the acquisition of land for B-Mobile tower. In that regard, the issue of ownership
of Manu customary land is and will not be an issue in that appeal.
- Having said that, I am not assisted by any of the parties to this appeal as to whether or not there are valid and binding land court
decisions that hinges on the ownership of Manu customary land. The decision of the MCLAC dated 12 November 2021, did not award ownership
of the subject land to any of the parties as well. In the absence of a valid and binding decision of the relevant land courts, how
could the powers of this court under section 256 of the Land and Titles Act (LTA) (cap 133) be invoked?
- This court can only have jurisdiction under s.256 of the LTA if and when a decision of the Customary Land Appeal Court that hinges
on the ownership of a subject land is raised. In this particular case, ownership of the Manu customary land is not even vested in
any of the parties to this appeal. The chiefs’ decision of 4 December 2020 that awarded ownership of the subject land to the
fourth respondent has been set aside by the MLC. In light of that decision, what could have stopped any of the disputing parting
from bringing the dispute before the relevant House of Chiefs within the locality of the subject land? I see no legal impediment
that could have stopped the disputing parties to invoke section 12 of the Local Courts Act (cap 19) so that their disputes could be entertained at that level.
- In light of the above discussion, I am of the view that in respect of the appellant’s amended notice of appeal filed on 13
May 2023, I hereby hold that the appeal is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of the court and I dismiss it under rule 9.75
(c) of the CPR. In view of that order, I need not rule on the application of the applicants for joinder. I hereby refer all interested
parties to commence land dispute proceeding before the relevant house of chiefs for determination on the ownership of Manu customary
land under s.12 of the Local Courts Act. I hereby order accordingly.
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2023/95.html