Manedika v Gota [2024] SBHC 14; HCSI-CC 416 of 2020 (4 March 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Manedika v Gota
Citation:
Date of decision:	4 March 2024
Parties:	William Tabu Manedika, James Susu and Frank Manedika v Charles Gota
Date of hearing:	9 August 2023
Court file number(s):	416 of 2020
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Faukona; DCJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Application to determine Preliminary point of law filed by the Claimant/Applicant is hereby dismissed. 2. Cost of this hearing be paid by the Claimants to the Defendant.
Representation:	Mr Iroga for Claimant/Applicants Mr Takosi for the Defendant/Respondent
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r12.11, r 12.11, r15.3.1, r 15.3.4, r 15.3, r 15.3.8, r 15.5.9
Cases cited:	Majoria v Jino [2008] SBHC 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 416 of 2020

BETWEEN

WILLIAM TABU MANEDIKA, JAMES SUSU AND FRANK MANEDIKA
Claimant/Applicants

AND:

CHARLES GOTA
Defendant/Respondent

Date of Hearing: 9 August 2023
Date of Ruling: 4 March 2024

Mr Iroga for Claimant/Applicants
Mr Takosi for the Defendant/Respondent

RULING ON APPLICATION TO DETERMINE ISSUE OF LAW

Faukona (DCJ).

1. This application is to determine preliminary issues of law, and was filed by the claimant/applicant on the 1^st of September 2022, pursuant to Rule 12.11 of the SI Civil Procedural Rules 2007.
2. The applicant sought declaratory orders from this Court to uphold the Native Court decision of 1956 as valid decision. And determine that it supersedes any latter court decisions (1988 Chief decision, 1989 Ngella Local Court decision and Central Islands Customary land Appeal Court decision in 1991) in respect of bouna customary land located at small Ngella, Central Islands Province.
3. The purpose of determining preliminary issues, before the trial of the substantive matters, is as expressed in r12.11 which states, “the court may hear legal arguments on preliminary issues of law between the parties if it appears likely that, if the issues are resolved, the proceeding or part of it be resolved without trial, or the costs of proceedings or part of it be resolved without trial, or the costs of proceedings or the issues in dispute are likely to be substantially reduced”.
4. The legal issue which must be determined at this preliminary hearing is the application of the principle of res-judicate, in the circumstance whether or not the Native Court decision of 1956 is a valid one and which supersedes the latter decisions.
5. The law on res-judicata /estoppel is define by the Black Law dictionary which I quote in the case of Majoria V Jino^[1].
6. Both authorities address the requirements which must be shown in res-judicata circumstance.
7. Firstly it must be shown that the earlier judgment relied on was a final judgment which had been settled by judicial decision.
8. Secondly, it must be shown that between the former and the present litigation there is an identity of parties, and the subject matter or cause of action is the same.
9. It may seem when applying the tests in the principle of res-judicata to the facts of this case, they resonates. However, to rely on parallel equation without deeper analysis is giving injustices to the submissions. In any event I will resume this discussion later in this ruling.
10. Meantime, it is important to unveil why after the last decision in 1991, this claim was filed 29 years later, and whether it is lawful to come to court and seek declaratory orders which may mean quashing order to quash or nullify the decisions of the Chiefs in 1988, Local Court decision in 1989 and CLAC decision in 1991.
11. To seek declaration order to nullify, or quash a judicial decision the applicant must come to Court premise on authority of law.
12. It simply mean to come to Court seeking declaration order to quash or nullify a decision of a decision maker, the applicant must file a claim for judicial review.
13. To assist in understanding the law, quashing order is defined in r15.3.1, and further elaboration in rule 15.3.4. The general tone of Chapter 15.3 applies to claims for judicial review and does not derogate from the Court’s inherent powers.
14. Noted as well, that r15.3.4 does not confine to review of acts or subsidiary legislation but decisions of decision makers as well-r15.3.1.
15. Rule 15.3.8 spell out time for filing a claim for quashing (nullifying) order, must be made or file within 6 months from the date of decisions which now being long gone, 29 years and more.
16. In this case there is no application filed by the applicants to extend time limit outside of the prescribe period in accordance with r15.3.9.
17. Because of the technicalities in law, I need not adventure in discussing the principle, suffice to stress only one particular issue.
18. The issue is, in the 1988 Chief hearing, it was the defendant/respondent who initiated it. And the parties had the same representatives of their tribes as attested in 1956 case. Affirmative of that initiation did reflect in the chiefs record which clearly identified the current defendant/respondent was the plaintiff in that case.
19. As recorded in the counter claim and before the Chiefs commenced to hear the dispute of the same land, there was information revealed that attract the attention of the parties and the Chiefs panel concerning the 1956 case which all were made aware of.
20. Further, the statement stated that the chiefs proceeded to hear the case after consulting the Magistrate in Honiara.
21. The evidence of prior knowledge by the Claimant before the Chiefs hearing in 1988 was confirm by Mr. John Louna in his sworn statement filed on 22^nd February 2020.
22. At paragraph 9, Mr Louna stated on the day of hearing a person called John Visivisi approached them with a piece of paper and told the Chiefs they could not proceed because there was a case heard in 1956 concerning the same land. Mr. Louna stated the paper contain an agreement between Mr. Issac Ariku and Mr. Kara. The paper must be the document Ännexure “CGI” attached to Mr. Gota sworn statement filed on 22^nd December 2020.
23. My personal observation view of that document is that, there was an actual hearing and there was a decision made.
24. What had occurred in the Colonial error is that after Native Court had made decision either in Criminal, Civil or land, the District Commissioner had to review to his satisfaction. If he satisfied then he would endorsed and that’s the end.
25. In this case whether the District Commissioner had endorsed or not is immaterial. What matters here is that the Claimant was aware of the 1956 case before the Chiefs proceeded to hear the dispute. See paragraph 19 of Mr. Louna sworn statement.
26. In any event the Claimant had reasonable opportunity to raise the issue of res judicata and issue estoppel at the commencement of the hearing of the Chiefs. He had failed to do so.
27. I would not belief his evidence that he merely learnt of the 1956 case after the CLAC hearing in 1991.
28. Therefore to come back after 29 years and attempt to litigate premise on the principle, is more than late.
29. As I have mention earlier, there is no need to go deeper into the extent of the arguments, about traditional relationship, and rights and interests of a tribe or clan.
30. Suffice to say the technical areas surrounding the case, have left no room to decide in favour of the application. I must dismiss the application with costs.

Orders:

1. Application to determine Preliminary point of law filed by the Claimant/Applicant is hereby dismissed.
2. Cost of this hearing be paid by the Claimants to the Defendant.

The Court.
Rex Faukona.
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE.

---

^[1] [2008] SBHC 67; HCSI CC 62 of 2008 (20 October 2008).