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

Laugana v Attorney General [2011] SBHC 76; HCSI-CC 262 of 2011 (22 August 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 262 of 2011

BETWEEN : SAVINO LAUGANA, THOMAS BOTU, DAMASA ROKO

AND RENATO KAVICHAVU

(Representing the Haubata Tribe) 1^st Claimant

AND : J.J.LIMITED 2^nd Claimant

AND : THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(Representing the Commissioner of Lands) 1^st Defendant

AND : THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(Representing the Registrar of Titles) 2^nd Defendant

AND : SOLOMON IMPORTS AND EXPORTS LIMITED 3^rd Defendant

HEARING : 1^st AUGUST 2011
RULING : 22^nd August 2011

P Tegavota for 2^nd Claimant/Applicant

RULING

Mwanesalua J:

1. This is an ex parte application by the Second Claimant for Orders against the Third Defendant. The Second Claimant seeks the following restraining orders, among other orders:
   
   1. That the Third Defendant, its servants, agents, employees or persons authorized by the said Defendant be restrained by interim order not to carry out any of the following acts:
      
      • (a) Preventing, stopping or interfering with the Second Claimant from using the sea area in front of the Second Claimant’s property FTE Parcel No. 191-010-228 for purposes of:
        
        • (i) Landing vessels, barges and landing crafts on the Second Claimant’s registered land;
          
        • (ii) Loading or unloading of machines, equipment, timbers and other goods on vessels, barges and landing crafts on the Second Claimant’s land; and
          
        • (iii) Conducting any other business activities whatsoever on the Claimant’s property using the sea area until further order.
          
      • (b) Demanding any landing fees, access fees and other fees for the use of the sea area; and
        
      • (c) The carrying out of any other acts or threats whatsoever that prevents, stop or interfere with the use of the sea area connected with any business activities being carried out on the Second Claimant’s land.
        
2. The Facts
   
   • 2.1 The Second Claimant relies upon the Sworn statement and exhibits of its Managing Director, Mr. Peter Chow (“PC”)
     
   • 2.2 The Second Claimant owns a fixed term estate in Parcel No. 191-010-228 at Ranadi in Honiara. It is situated on the seaside beside of the road which ran down beside Telekom, following the sea side. A copy of this fixed term estate registered title is marked as Exhibit “PC1”. The survey map showing the location of the fixed term estate is marked as Exhibit “PC2”.
     
   • 2.3 After the Second Claimant had acquired its title, it signed an agreement on 15 October 2003 with the First Claimant, the Customary Landowners of the sea front, for commercial activities, such as loading and the unloading of machines, cargoes, timbers and other goods, including landing of barges and other vessels. A copy of the said agreement is marked as Exhibit “PC3” and the map showing the beach front which the Second Claimant acquired from the First Claimant is marked as Exhibit “PC4”.
     
   • 2.4 The Second Claimant was not aware of any application by the Commissioner of Lands to the Registrar of Titles, to register on behalf of the government the sea front of its parcel, as Perpetual Estate No. 192-010-260 to 265. ( Exhibit “PC7”)
     
   • 2.5 The sea area registered in the name of the Third Defendant, is fixed term estate no. 192-010-262 (Exhibit “PC8” and Exhibit “PC12”)
     
3. On 3 May 2011 the Second Claimant lodged a caveat over Perpetual Estate and Fixed Term Estate in Parcel No. 192-010-262 to protect its interest. This caveat was subsequently registered on 4 May 2011.
   
4. This case involves ownership of registered parcels of land and access rights to them. Further, there may be legal issues regarding the ownership of Perpetual Estate No. 191-010-265 by the Commissioner of Lands in view of the decision in Combined Fera Group v Attorney-General [1997] SBHC 55; HC – LAC 004 of 1993 (19 November 1997).
   
5. In Summary, there are serious legal issues to be decided in this case. Thus, this application is allowed and the orders sought are granted. Order accordingly.
   

THE COURT