Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Soimagela v Toata [2011] SBHC 192; HCSI-CC 335 of 2009 (9 September 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

BETWEEN:

SAUL SIOMAGELA
Claimant

AND:

LIONEL TOATA
1st Defendant

AND:

SIMON SAGI
2nd Defendant

AND:

SHEMUEL MANATA
3rd Defendant

AND:

ANDREW RIIGERA
4^th Defendant

HEARING: 21 July 2011
JUDGMENT: 9 September 2011

C Fakarii for the Claimant
No appearance for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

1. The Claim - The Claimant in this case is Mr. Saul Siomagela. He filed a claim for damages limited to $50,000.00, restraining orders and costs against the Defendants on 4 September 2009. But he amended his claim on 28 September 2009. The Defendants failed to file any response or defence to the Claim. As a result, default judgment was entered against the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants, on 18 June 2010, while the claim against the Third Defendant was discontinued. A hearing on the assessment of damages was made on 12 August 2011. The Defendant were not present and not represented.

2. The Facts - The Defendants are the registered owners of the Perpetual Estate in Parcel Number 13-018-1 (the Property) from 25 July 1996. This Property is situated at Malu'u in the Malaita Province. The Claimant bought a house, renovated it for about $1000.00 and moved onto the Property in 1995. On 22 January 2005, he leased the property from the Defendants for a period of Thirty years from 1 January 1997 for commercial purposes. He paid a premium of $3,500.00 and the rental is $500.00 per annum. The house he renovated comprises of four rooms. The upper rooms are for rental by lodgers, while the two ground floor rooms are for storage.

3. Interference with Lease Contract - On or about 18 August 2005, the Fourth Defendant's nephew confronted the Claimant at Old Saints, Honiara, and informed him angrily that the property has already reverted back to the Lessors; on or about 14 December 2005, the First Defendant chased claimant's security from the property; on or about 3 January 2006, the son of the Third Defendant chased a tenant who had entered into agreement with the Claimant for a sub-lease of the two ground floor rooms for storage of road construction equipment; Between 3 and 5 August 2009, the 1st Defendant prevented a sub-lessee from putting up a shop on the property and forced the sub-lessee from the said property; And at or about the 4th Defendant's son chased a Claimant's employee from the property and falsely informed the employee that the lessors had already repossessed the property from the Claimant; The Defendants were aware of the events described in this paragraph and have not taken any steps to prevent the members of their family from interfering with the Claimant's lease contract. Instead, they seemed to condon and abetted the interference by their acquiescence. By force of the Land and Titles Act (Cap. 133) or under common law, the Defendants are bound by the terms of the Claimants lease contract to let the Claimant peacefully hold and enjoy the leased property during the term of the lease without interruption. And as a direct result of the Defendants' interference, the Claimant was put to loss.

4. The Law - The Claimant leased the property and has been paying rentals to the Defendants. In law, he has right to peaceably hold and enjoy the Leased Estate until it expired. There is evidence that the Defendants have interfered with Lease Contract executed between them and the Claimant. That is obviously unlawful and must be stopped by the Defendants.

5. Economic Loss - in 2005, a church pastor was a tenant of the property for 11 months. Under the influence of the Defendants, the Claimant only received $3,200.00 for lodge rentals. The Claimant lost $17,905.00 in rentals. Then an official from Kitano Construction Company was going to be tenant of this property for 11 months. However, he was chased out after spending only one night on the property. The Claimant had suffered loss of $21,105.00 from rentals on the property. And then between 3 to 5 August 2009, Mr. Harry Ruraimamanu was going to rent the two ground rooms of the property to put a shop at the rental of $2,500.00 per month for 3 years. The First Defendant forced him out from the property. The claim suffered loss of $90,000.00. The total loss in rentals is in excess of $128,000.00.

6. The claim by the Claimant is limited to $50,000.00. The court will assess damages to the Claimant in the sum of $48,000.00. An interest of 5% per annum will be charged on this amount from the date of the issue of the claim to the date of this assessment.

Order:

1. Damages $48,000.00

2. Interest 5% per annum from 10/12/2009 to 9/9/2011.

3. Costs of the assessment hearing to be paid by the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants.

4. The 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants are restrained from interfering with the Claimants use of the property comprised in Parcel No. 034-018-1, until the Claimants lease of the property expires.

THE COURT