Fa'akanoa v Katai [2017] SBMC 36; Civil Case 11 of 2017 (18 August 2017)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT )
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS )

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 11 of 2017

BETWEEN: BILLY FA’AKANOA CLAIMANT

AND: DANIEL KATAI FIRST DEFENDANT

AND: PATRICK BASIKAFO SECOND DEFENDANT

AND: LILIO DAOTA THIRD DEFENDANT

Date of Hearing: 4^th August 2017
Date of Ruling: 18^th August 2017

Mr. C. Rarumae for the Claimant
Mr. M. Hauri’i for the Second and Third Defendant

RULING ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT CLAIM

Application

1. The claimant, Billy Fa’akanoa (“claimant”), filed a claim in category B. The claim is for restitution of a coconut plantation illegally sold to Lilio Daota, by Daniel Katai and Patrick Basikafo (“first and second defendant”); reimbursement of loses suffered as a result of the illegal sale and use of the coconut plantation by the defendants; restraining of the defendants from carrying out any harassment or threatening conduct towards the claimant in person or his family members and any other orders the court thinks fit in light of the circumstance of the case.
   
2. The defendants after being served with the claim filed an application to strike out the claim. This was done by the first and second defendant. They believed that the claimant does not have locus standi or right to lodge this claim in court for recovery of the coconut plantation since he has already resold it and therefore, he no longer has any right of ownership over that property.
   

Brief facts

3. The pleadings before the court disclosed that on 21^st September 2012, the claimant bought the coconut plantation from William Sikwa’ae for $8,000. The sale was formalised by an agreement titled “Sale and Purchase of Coconut Plantation” signed by the claimant and Sikwa’ae. Thereafter, the claimant has ownership of that property and remains to be his personal property.
   
4. Following a tragic incident resulting in the death of the defendants’ family member believed to be caused by a family member of the claimant, demands were made for compensation payment from the claimant’s family. Aggrieved by the inadequate payment of the compensation, the first and second defendant sold the coconut plantation to the third defendant in what the claimant described the sale “was done illegally.”^[1]
   
5. The defendants were cautioned to refrain from the illegal sale of the property in a letter dated 29^th March 2016 authored by the claimant. Despite the notice, the defendants however sent him acrimonious letters forewarning him not to claim the property anymore or set foot on the coconut plantation.^[2] The defendants stand is the plantation was not his personal property but owned by his entire family and it was already been given to the first and second defendant’s family as part of the compensation for the death of their family member. This assertion was vigorously denied by the claimant. Even Stanley Agwaifei^[3] also denied entering into any deal to transfer the coconut plantation to any villager at Kafoasila in North Malaita.
   
6. On 31^st March 2017, the claimant resold the coconut plantation to Sikwa’ae for $12,000. Only $5,000 was paid and the balance of $7,000 is still outstanding. Therefore, in his view, he still owned the property pending full payment by Sikwa’ae. Realising the property is now under the control of the third defendant and the inability for him to recover it from him, he decided to institute the claim against the defendants for the orders referred to earlier.
   

Law on application to strike out

7. The law on strike out a claim is clear to any legal practitioner in our jurisdiction. Rule 9.75 is the legal regime for this.^[4] Accordingly, it requires the applicant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the case is frivolous and vexatious, it has no reasonable cause of action and is an abuse of court process. Unless the court is satisfied on these, there is no ground to prematurely terminate a case.
   
8. A good number of case authorities continue to advocate this principle. An example is the case of Mane v Evo^[5], where Faukona J, clearly explained the application of this principle in the following unequivocal terms:
   

“In brief the principle is that to strike out a claim the Court may do so in exceptional cases only where it is shown that there is no reasonable cause of action. Even if leave is granted for amendment such would not cure the defects. If pleadings or statement show some essential facts which disclose some cause of action or raise question fit to be considered, the Court should not strike out the pleading or statement of claim. Even if the case is weak and likely not to succeed, that is no ground to strike out.”^[6]

9. In brief, when dealing with an application to strike out, the court as a starting point is required to look at the claim and ascertain whether there is a cause of action or the materials raise question(s) fit to be considered by the court. The claim must be one in which a reasonable person could perceive and content or satisfied that a claimant did have a real grievance to come to court and seek redress. As prescribed in the case of Mane, even if the case is weak and not likely to succeed, such should not be the ground to strike out the case.
   

Whether the claimant has locus standi to bring the matter in court

10. It is well settled law that locus standi is a right to bring a legal action in court.^[7]
    
11. The claimant averred that he still owned the coconut plantation. At all times, it not his family but his personal property. Despite he had entered into an agreement to resale the property to Sikwa’ae, the selling price is yet to be fully paid and hence, his right of ownership over the property is yet to be relinquished. Thus, when the plantation was sold to the third defendant by the first and second defendant, it was allegedly done illegally by non-owners and therefore, he has the right to bring the matter against the defendants in court.
    
12. I think this issue is rather straight forward. From what the materials had disclosed, it is clear that he has a vested interest in this case. His right to bring this matter to court emanates from his claim of ownership of the coconut planation. Hence, the conduct of the defendants as complained of herein no doubt has affected or even interfered with his right of ownership to the property. That is the connection the claimant has shown herein.^[8]
    
13. Even if the defendants had denied he no longer has the right to claim ownership over the property after he had resold it to Sikwa’ae, this issue will only relevant at the trial proper. That is the avenue where issues regarding which version of the evidence should be accepted or the credibility of the witnesses should be properly dealt with and not at this stage. I am satisfied that the materials before me is sufficient to reach a finding that he has locus standi to bring this matter to court.
    
14. Having settled on this, it is needless for me to explore the issue of whether the claim is frivolous and vexatious or it has no reasonable cause of action and an abuse of court process as normally required. The claim on its face value has disclosed a tenable cause of action. I don’t see it is frivolous or vexatious or even one that is used to exert undue pressure or oppression on the defendants in order to achieve an improper result.
    
15. The orders of the Court are:-
    

15. 1 Dismiss the application to strike out the claim.

15. 2 No order for costs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate)

---

^[1] Paragraph 17 of Billy Fa’akanoa sworn statement filed on 21/06/2017
^[2] See annexure BF3 of Billy Fa’akanoa sworn statement filed - 21/06/2017 and undated letter jointly written by Nunuta Daota, Katai. A, Gegeni and Henry. S – filed on 13/2/2017
^[3] See declaration of Stanley Agwaifei filed – 5/4/2017
^[4] Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007
^[5] [2015] SBHC 7; HCSI-CC 414 of 2012 (3 March 2015)
^[6] At paragraph 13
^[7] Oxford Dictionary of Law, (2003), Oxford University Press
^[8] R v Paddington, Ex parte Peachey Property Corporation Ltd [1966] 1 QB 380