Laugwaro v Auga [2003] SBMC 3; CMC-CC 042 of 2002 (3 December 2003)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction

Case No. CC042 of 2002

BETWEEN

TIMOTHY LAUGWARO
Plaintiff

-and-

DAVID AUGA
Defendant

Hearing 12^th February 2003
Judgment 3^rd December 2003

Mr M Ipo for the Plaintiff
Defendant in person
Before Magistrate R D Chetwynd

JUDGMENT

This is a claim by the Plaintiff Mr Laugwaro against the Defendant Mr Augo. The claim arises out of compensation payments made by the Solomon Islands Government to those who lost property during the period of what has become known as the ethnic tension in 1999 and 2000.

The Plaintiff had, during the years preceding the ethnic tension, lived on Guadalcanal. He was forced out of his home on Guadalcanal. He lost his house and other goods and chattels. He had to move to his “home island” of Malaita. He made a claim for “lost property” compensation in the region of $184,000.00. That claim was accepted. The Solomon Island Government (SIG) agreed at some stage or other to pay to the Plaintiff a lump sum of some $24,000.00. ^[1]

The Defendant was the Chairman of the West Fataleka Committee (the Committee). The Defendant said in evidence that the Committee was delegated by SIG to administer payments to claimants in the West Fataleka constituency. He agrees that the Committee only paid $16,000.00 to the Plaintiff and not the $24,000.00 agreed by SIG. ^[2]

The Defendant says that he and his Committee members were “unpaid” for their work and so they reduced payments to some claimants and paid their own lost property claims in full. This was to “compensate” the Committee members for all their unpaid work. This was the reason why the Plaintiff only received $16,000.00 and not $24,000.00. The Plaintiff was not happy and has sued the Defendant for the balance of the $24,000.00.

After I heard evidence and submissions from the parties I felt that important issues had been raised by the claim and I referred the matter to the High Court to seek assistance in answering 3 questions. ^[3] In brief terms, I asked the High Court to say first, whether the “lost property payments” were lawful, secondly whether, if they were lawful then was it possible for SIG to delegate administration to the Committee and finally, if that was permissible then what was the extent of the delegated powers of the Committee. That reference came before His Lordship the Chief Justice and he gave a ruling which is dated 19^th August 2003. ^[4] His Lordship’s ruling was to the effect that the payments were lawful but that SIG could not delegate administration of them to the Committee. The third question was also answered in the negative. In short, His Lordship held that if the duties of SIG could not be delegated then the Committee did not have any authority to “administer” payments.

Having read His Lordship’s detailed and helpful ruling I am able to give a relatively short and simple judgment in respect of the Plaintiff’s claim in this matter. If the Defendant (and the Committee) had no power or authority to administer the payments then they could not alter what had been agreed to be paid by SIG. They were obliged to deal with the funds under their control strictly in accordance with the agreement between SIG and the Plaintiff. In fact, I am of the view that they should have declined to deal with the money in any way. They should not have assumed control but told SIG to make any payments itself. In view of what happened I question the motives of the Committee in assuming control of the funds.

The evidence shows that they did deal with the funds and that they did not make full payment of the sum agreed between the Plaintiff and SIG. These are not issues which are in dispute. In his Judgment His Lordship found that, ^[5] “In the process, (of the Committee dealing with lost property payments) the rights and interests of individuals were adversely affected”. They should have paid the Plaintiff the full amount of $24,000.00. They, meaning the Defendant and the Committee, chose not to do so. Instead they chose to pay themselves more than had been agreed between themselves and SIG. ^[6]

The most they could do was to pay themselves the amounts agreed between themselves and SIG, that is the amounts set out in Exhibit 1. By making deductions they as they did (as is clearly evidenced and set out in exhibit 2) they deprived the Plaintiff of the right to receive the full amount of $24,000.00. In doing so they clearly had an adverse affect on the “rights and interests” of the Plaintiff. If a person unlawfully or without authority interferes with the rights and interests of another then he is liable to that other for any loss suffered by that other. The Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the balance of some $6,000.00. (It follows from what I have said, although I can make no order as such, that all others who received less than they should have are also able to recover the “balance” from the Defendant and or the Committee.)

I therefore award judgment to the Plaintiff in the sum claimed $6,000.00 together with costs and expenses. I assess the costs and expenses at $350.00 together with any Court fees paid by the Plaintiff. The judgment and costs are to be paid forthwith.

I cannot leave this matter without making one further comment. I have adjudged the Defendant’s actions (and, inter alia, those of the Committee) as unlawful. I feel I am obliged to refer the papers in this matter to the Royal Solomon Islands Police to allow them to investigate whether the actions of the Defendant and the Committee were also illegal.

Dated 3^rd December 2003

R D Chetwynd
Chief Magistrate (Ag)

---

^[1] See Exhibit 1, “Lost Property Payments Schedule”
^[2] See Exhibit 2, “Lost Property Payments Schedule”
^[3] See Case Stated for the consideration of the High Court dated 9^th May 2003 in CC 102 of 2003
^[4] High Court Solomon Islands Civil case No. 102 of 2003
^[5] CC 102 of 2003 Unreported Judgment dated 19^th August 2003 at page 6
^[6] See the amounts set out in Exhibit 2