HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Silas v Attorney General 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	21 March 2025	
		
Parties: 	Nixon Silas v Attorney General, Attorney General 	
		
Date of hearing: 	24 January 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	455 of 2017	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Aulanga ; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The First and Second Defendants are to pay as compensation for the actual loss suffered by the Claimant due to the resumption of land in Fixed Term Estate Parcel Number 098-012-505, Lot 922 as follows:
(a) 	$46,626.60 as costs of the offer for PN-505;
(b) 	$3,720.00 as costs for the building permit issued by the Western Provincial Government;
(c) 	$712,188.00 as costs of improvements and the building on PN-505; and 
(d) 	$116,270.00 as costs of demolition or removal of property resulting from the resumption.
2.	The total compensation payable to the Claimant is $878,804.60.
3.	The costs of this proceeding are to be paid by the First and Second Defendants on a standard basis.	
		
Representation: 		
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Solomon Islands Terminal Services Ltd v Minister for Lands and Housing [2023] SBHC 158, 	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 455 of 2017

BETWEEN:

NIXON SILAS
Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Lands)
First Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Registrar of Titles)
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 24 January 2025
Date of Judgment: 21 March 2025

Ms. Y. Samuel for the Claimant 
Ms. R. Soma for the First and Second Defendant 
JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL 
AULANGA, PJ:
1. 	This proceeding concerns a decision made by the First Defendant regarding the resumption of registered land in a Fixed Term Estate, located in Parcel Number 098-012-505, Lot 922 (“PN-505”), situated in Noro, Western Province. This land was originally registered to the Claimant but was later resumed or reacquired by the First Defendant for public purposes.
2. 	Briefly, on 2nd November 2015, the Claimant was presented with an offer for PN-505, with a total sum of $46,626.60 to be paid to the Ministry of Lands, Housing, and Survey. On 22nd January 2016, the Claimant paid the full amount of the offer. On 18th February 2016, the Claimant signed the Grant for PN-505, and the land was formally registered to him in March 2016. Subsequently, the Claimant proceeded to develop the land.
3. 	PN-505 was a swampy and undeveloped area, situated next to the Noro market in New Georgia, Western Province. To develop the land, the Claimant used bulldozers, dump trucks, chainsaw operators, and manual labour to clear and level the area. The land was backfilled to provide a solid foundation for further development. The Claimant then fenced the land and constructed a building. A photograph of the developed state of PN-505 before resumption can be found on page 40 of the Court Book.
4. 	On 2nd August 2016, after the development of PN-505, the First Defendant informed the Claimant through a letter that PN-505 had been erroneously granted to him, as the land had been reserved as a Public Amenity area. The First Defendant also informed the Claimant that the grant would be cancelled and instructed him to cease all development on the land.
5. 	In response to the First Defendant’s letter, the Claimant wrote back on 11th August 2016, stating that he would not accept the decision. The Claimant argued that a significant amount of money had been spent on the development of the land, and the advice was given about seven months after the offer for PN-505 had been made.
6. 	Despite the First Defendant’s advice, on 11th December 2016, the Claimant was granted permission by the Western Provincial Government to continue development on the land. This permit was issued after the Claimant paid $3,720.00 for the permit. However, on 28th December 2016, the Western Provincial Government issued a stop notice, instructing the Claimant to cease all development on PN-505. This decision aligned with the First Defendant’s position. Subsequently, on 12th May 2017, the Claimant received formal notice of resumption, giving him one month’s notice for the resumption of PN-505. On 10th October 2017, the Claimant’s title to PN-505 was formally cancelled by the Second Defendant.
7. 	As a result of the actions of the Defendants, the Claimant initiated this proceeding under a Category A claim. The claim was amended, seeking the following reliefs:
1)	A declaratory order that the resumption of the Fixed Term Estate in Parcel Number 098-012-505, Lot 922 by the Commissioner of Lands without compensation is in breach of Clause 3 of the Grant Instrument signed by the First Defendant and the Claimant on 18th February 2016.
2)	A consequential order that the resumption of the Fixed Term Estate in Parcel Number 098-012-505, Lot 922 be rectified by the Second Defendant and reinstated to the Claimant.
3)	In the alternative, an order that the Claimant be compensated in accordance with Clause 3 of the Grant Instrument signed by the First Defendant and the Claimant on 18th February 2016.
4)	An order for damages for misfeasance against the First Defendant.
5)	Costs of and incidental to this proceeding.
6)	Any other order or further orders as the court thinks fit in the circumstances.
Agreement on the Contested Issue
8. 	At the commencement of the trial, both counsels agreed that the only issue for determination was the quantum of compensation for the actual loss suffered by the Claimant in relation to improvements made on PN-505. This agreement was reflected in the written submissions of both parties.
9. 	Based on the agreement, it is my view that there is an admission of liability for compensation required under Clause 3 of the Grant Instrument signed by the First Defendant and the Claimant on 18th February 2016.
Respective Contentions of the Parties
10. 	In relation to the issue of compensation, counsel for the First and Second Defendants submitted that the Claimant should only be compensated for two aspects: first, the total sum paid for the offer of PN-505, and second, the total expenses incurred for the improvements made to the land prior to the notices issued on 2nd August 2016 and 28th December 2016. The notice of 2nd August 2016 was a formal advice to the Claimant that PN-505 had been erroneously granted, as it was reserved for the extension of the Noro Township market. The notice of 28th December 2016 was a stop notice issued by the Western Provincial Government, instructing the Claimant not to undertake further development on the land.
11. 	The Claimant’s counsel, on the other hand, submitted that compensation should include not only the sum paid for the offer of PN-505 but also all expenses incurred for improvements to the land before the formal notice of resumption was issued on 12th May 2017. The Claimant contends that these expenses represent the actual loss suffered as a result of the resumption.
Quantum of Compensation to be paid to the Claimant 
12. 	Clause 3 of the Grant Instrument signed by the First Defendant and the Claimant on 18th February 2016 states: “The Grantor HEREBY GRANTS to the Grantee(s) an estate in the land comprised in Parcel Number 098-012-505 for a term of fifty years from the first day of January 2016. The Grant is subject to the reservation in favour of the Grantor of the right, subject to one month’s notice being given in writing to the Grantee(s), to resume without payment of any compensation for unimproved land, but upon payment to the Grantee(s) of compensation for actual loss in respect of improved land, such portions of the land comprised in the estate as may at any time be required for the construction of roads or other public purposes.”
13. 	Clause 3 is clear that the Claimant is entitled to compensation only for the improvements made to the land. If the land is unimproved, no compensation is payable. In this case, the Defendants have admitted that the Claimant is entitled to compensation for the “actual loss” incurred due to improvements made to PN-505 prior to its resumption. I concur with the sensibleness of the concession.
14. 	I have considered the evidence presented in this proceeding. There is uncontested evidence from the Claimant that as soon as he became the registered proprietor of PN-505, he began developing the land, utilizing bulldozers, dump trucks, chainsaw operators, and manual labour to clear and level the area. The land was backfilled, fenced, and a building was constructed. These improvements were funded by a company managed by Prakash, with whom the Claimant had a business arrangement at the time, as detailed in Prakash’s evidence at page 70 of the Court Book.
15. 	The Defendants’ counsel argued that expenses incurred by a third party (Prakash’s company) should not be considered when calculating the Claimant’s compensation. I reject this submission, as there is no absolute rule that the Claimant must personally bear the costs for the “actual loss.” This argument ignores the commercial realities and arrangement made between the Claimant and Prakash that resulted in the development of PN-505 prior to its resumption. In any event, the Claimant’s business arrangement with Prakash does not change the fact that substantial financial expenses were incurred in the development of PN-505, which should not be disregarded.
16. 	The evidence at page 66 of the Court Book shows the state of the development on PN-505 before it was demolished following the notice of resumption. This evidence is unchallenged.
17. 	Clause 3 of the Grant Instrument does not specify whether “actual loss” should include the redevelopment value of the land. In Solomon Islands Terminal Services Ltd v Minister of Lands and Housing [2023] SBHC 158, the Court explained that compensation for land resumption should consider the payment of the premium and the costs incurred for improvements to the land. The Court did not state that compensation should also include the value of the redeveloped land. 
18. 	In my view, the plain interpretation of “actual loss” in Clause 3 of the Grant Instrument refers to expenses incurred for the payment of the offer to a fixed term estate, costs for improvements, and other disturbance costs, such as the costs of demolition or removal from the land following the resumption.
19. 	The unchallenged valuation report for PN-505, annexed as “2MP-1” in Michael Prakash’s sworn statement filed on 6th June 2019, cited from pages 73–87 of the Court Book, details the value of the land, the costs of improvements, and the costs of demolition. The report states that the value of PN-505 was $4,081,200.00, with improvement costs totalling $712,188.00 and demolition costs amounting to $116,270.00.
20. 	Based on the reasoning in Solomon Islands Terminal Services Ltd v Minister of Lands and Housing (supra) and the plain interpretation of “actual loss” under Clause 3 of the Grant Instrument, I find that the Claimant is entitled to compensation for the payment of: (i) the offer fee for PN-505 ($46,626.60), (ii) the costs for building permit issued by the Western Provincial Government ($3,720.00), (iii) the costs for improvements and the building constructed on PN-505 ($712,188.00), and (iv) the costs of demolition or removal from PN-505 ($116,270.00).
21. 	The Claimant is not entitled to compensation for the redevelopment value of the land, as this, in my view, is not covered under the Grant Instrument or the Land and Titles Act.
22. 	This proceeding must be resolved by way of costs in that the costs of this proceeding are to be paid by the First and Second Defendants on a standard basis.
Orders of the Court
1.	The First and Second Defendants are to pay as compensation for the actual loss suffered by the Claimant due to the resumption of land in Fixed Term Estate Parcel Number 098-012-505, Lot 922 as follows:
(a) 	$46,626.60 as costs of the offer for PN-505;
(b) 	$3,720.00 as costs for the building permit issued by the Western Provincial Government;
(c) 	$712,188.00 as costs of improvements and the building on PN-505; and 
(d) 	$116,270.00 as costs of demolition or removal of property resulting from the resumption.
2.	The total compensation payable to the Claimant is $878,804.60.
3.	The costs of this proceeding are to be paid by the First and Second Defendants on a standard basis.
THE COURT
Augustine S. Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE