LAC No 001, 99, HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Land Appeal Case No 001 of 1999

JOSEPH MAJORA AND REUBEN GANIA

-v-

DENIMANA AND OTHERS

High Court of Solomon Islands 
(J R Brown)
LAC No 001 of 1999

Date of hearing: 27 October 2003 
Date of Judgment: 27 October 2003 

Appellant in person (Mr. Tegavota absent in Seghe) 
Mr. A. Radclyffe - Respondent 

Reasons for Decision

An earlier application to appeal under 060 A r. 2(5) was struck out by Kabui PJ on the 26 September 2003. This application then is for special leave to extend the time allowed for the appeal. 

The basis of the special leave is: 

a) ethnic tension since the date of the order 24 January 2001 (meaning that the applicant’s security was doubtful in Honiara from that time until recently. 

b) funding the appeal was difficult 

c) understanding from the Registrar’s letter of the 29 May 2000 that the appeal is pending anyway. 

d) delay does not cause prejudice to the respondents 

The History - Considered in High Court 6/1995 
Considered by Local Court 2/98 
CLAC 18/98 

Appeal against Registrar’s order striking out. Normal time 7 days. 

Represented by lawyer Not 7 days passed but over two years. 

Notice of Appeal grounds 

1. considered by CLAC 
2. considered 
3. considered 
4. wrong - finding made 
5. wrong - finding made 
6. wrong - finding made 
7. 

The appeal itself 

Whilst no argument has been addressed I am satisfied that the grounds raised in the Notice of Appeal have been addressed by the CLAC. The High Court cannot substitute findings on the facts found, only make findings on law misunderstood or wrongly applied. No law is in issue, apparent on the face of the notice of appeal consequently no appeal lies, in any event. 

The registrar’s order was made in the absence of the appellant. Notice had been given to the appellants in accordance with the Rules. The Registrar has power to strike out the appeal because of the non appearance and in any event, had he considered the appeal on the merits, he may have found no grounds sufficient for this Court to consider. 

The application today is for leave to extend the time to complain about the Registrar’s act in striking out the appeal. 

As I have said, the Registrar had the power to strike out and Judge Kabui has already dealt with that issue. 

I have made comments on the strength or otherwise of the actual appeal. In my view, it lacks strength and does not need to be considered any further. The leave to extend time relies on a) above. Since there are no merits in the appeal, I or mistake by the Registrar, the assertion that instructions could not be given for an appeal, short of coming to Honiara, does not give me any reason to depart from the rule that 7 days only should be allowed to appeal against the Registrar’s decision. Certainly the Registrar’s letter does not say the appeal is still pending. 

The respondents will be prejudiced by further consideration of this matter. They have the finding of the CLAC and they are entitled to rely on it, not have to worry about this supposed appeal. 

The leave to extend time is struck out. The history of these appeals causes me disquiet, since the applicants do not seem to appreciate, or understand that they must comply with the orders of the CLAC and comply with the Rules of this Court if they wish to be fair to all the persons involved. 

Order 

1. The application is struck out. 

2. The applicants shall pay the respondent’s costs 

3. The applicants are prevented from instituting any further proceedings in this cause of what ever kind until outstanding costs orders are paid. 

J R BROWN
PUISNE JUDGE