HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 365 of 2009

BETWEEN:

RAMO DAUSABEA
Claimant

AND:

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
First Defendant

AND:

PACIFIC ISLAND TIMBER COMPANY
Second Defendant

AND:

BAKO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
Third Defendant

AND:

HAYNES MAETALA
Fourth Defendant

AND:

SIMON SODO
Fifth Defendant

AND:

FRED OTOINAO
Sixth Defendant

Date of Hearing : 17 August 2011
Date of Judgment : 6 October 2011

A Nori for Claimant
D.Damilea for First Defendant
A Radclyffe for Second and Third Defendant
No appearance for Fourth Defendant
No appearance for Fifth Defendant
No appearance for Sixth Defendant 

JUDGMENT

1.	The Claimant, Mr. Ramo Dausabea, filed his claim on 24 September 2009. He seeks:

(1)	A declaration that the transfer and registration of fixed term estate in parcel number 191-052-237 in the name of the Second Defendant by the First Defendant on 27th July 2001 was void ab initio;

(2)	A declaration that the transfer and registration of fixed-term estate in parcel number 191-052-237 in the name of the Third Defendant by the First Defendant on 20th May 2009 was void ab initio;

(3)	An order against the First Defendant to rectify the Register of fixed-term estate by removing the name of the Second Defendant as estate owner of Parcel Number 191-052-237 and by replacing the same therefore, the name of the Claimant.

(4)	An injunction to restrain the Third Defendant from applying to the First Defendant or from taking any steps whatsoever so as to have its name registered as owner of the Land herein.

(5)	Costs.

2.	The Claimant, MR. Ramo Dausabea, was granted a Fixed-Term Estate in Parcels Number 191-052-225 to 191-052-239 (inclusive) by the Commissioner of Lands on 29 December 1997. The area of the estate is approximately 4.2722 hectors at a rental of $1,722.00 per year. The estate is subject to restrictions. That is say, that no subdivision, lease, sublease, transfer or any charge over it without the written consent of the Commissioner of Lands.

3.	In 7 September 2000, the Claimant signed an agreement with the Second Defendant for the sale of a block of land for the sum of $143,669.38. A portion of that block has already been subdivided into 12 lots. There is a sentence in paragraph 1 (a) of that agreement which states, "The remaining will be subdivided by Walter Jones". The Claimant confirmed signing this agreement in the presence of Mr. John Hikimae in his sworn statement of 23 December 2010. He re-confirmed that during his evidence in court on 27 May 2011. On 9 March 2011, Mr. Walter Jones made a sworn statement on behalf of the Second Defendant, of which he is the Director. In that sworn statement, he says that the Claimant agreed to sale all the land described in that agreement. They read the contract before they signed it in the presence of Mr. Hikimae, a Commissioner of Oaths.

4.	Mr Walter Jones went on to say that the Claimant and the Second Defendant signed a transfer for the estate to be registered in the name of the Second Defendant. But the Claimant claims that he merely discovered the Second Defendant as the registered owner of the estate when he returned from Australia in mid-2001. This suggests he had never signed the transfer as the transferor of the estate at all. But his name and signature appeared on the transfer. That signature is the same as his signatures in the sale Agreement of 7 September of 2000; in the caveat dated 22 July 2009; in his sworn statement of 6 July 2010 and in his sworn statement of 23 December 2010. The court is thus sure that he signed the transfer.

5.	The Claimant says that Parcel No. 191-052-237 was fraudulently or mistakenly added to the fourth schedule of the Transfer instrument. But surely he signed the transfer and would have noted any if anything was wrong with it then. It seems from the sentence which I referred to in paragraph 3 above, that the Claimant had sold the whole of his estate to the Second Defendant. He later asked Mr. Walter Jones to pay back the land. Mr. Walter Jones refused. It is not clear why he decided to buy back the land. It may be because he regretted the sale afterwards. At that time, the sale of the land had completed. 

6.	The descriptions of the lots may have been incorrectly identified in the sale agreement, but the Claimant had agreed to sell his land to the Second Defendant. In any case the parcels were correctly identified in the 4th schedule of the transfer. The Claimant signed the transfer as mentioned above.

7.	The Second Defendant registered its fixed term estate in Parcel 191-052-225 to 191-052-239 on 7 July 2001. The Claimant authorised the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants to build on parts of Parcel Number 191-052-237. He had no rights on the estate when he told them to do so. They are therefore on the land unlawfully and are trespasses.

8.	The Second Defendant had sold its estate to the Third Defendant. The Third Defendant's fixed term estate had been registered. That was before the Claimant's caveat was registered. The fixed term estate was therefore validly registered in the name of the Third Defendant. The First Defendant was wrong in cancelling the Third Defendant as the registered owner of Fixed 
Term Estate in Parcel No. 191-052-237. There is no fraud or mistake established against the Second and the Third Defendant. They carried out a lawful transaction on that land.

9.	I have considered the submissions and concerns made on behalf the Claimant. This court holds the view that there are no proper grounds to support his claim. On that basis, the reliefs he sought in this case are refused.

10.	The orders sought by counsel for the Second and Third Defendants are granted. Order accordingly.

THE COURT