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

Zortu Development Company Ltd v Likokovu [2012] SBHC 82; HCSI-CC 323 of 2008 (13 August 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 323 of 2008

BETWEEN:

ZORTU DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD
Claimant

AND:

HILLY LIKOKOVU
First Defendants

AND:

ALICK LAMUBETI
Second Respondent

AND:

BASANIO JACK LAMANA
Third Respondent

AND:

TERRY MATEKOLO
Fourth Respondent

Date of Ruling: 13 August 2012

G Suri for the Claimant
C Hapa for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants

RULING

MWANESALUA J:

[1] This is an application for contempt filed by the Claimant on 10th May 2011 for the following orders: (1) An order against the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants for breaching the Orders of 25th January 2010; (2) Any Orders the Court deems fit and (3) Costs.

[2] The Court Orders of 25th January 2010 are in these terms: "(1) It is ordered that the Defendants, their relatives and supporters are restrained from in any way interfering with the Claimant's logging operations on Zorutu Land being the Land covered by Licence A10715 dated 3rd October 2007. (2) The Defendants to pay the Claimant's costs, such costs to be agreed or taxed and in any event payable within 28 days from 7th December 2007."

[3] The Claimant alleges that the action of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants either jointly or severally has lead to the following breaches of the Law:

(1) A violation of Order (1) of His Lordship Goldsbrough's Orders of 25 January 2010 restraining the First, Second, Third and Fourth Defendants or their relatives and supporters from in any way interfering with the Claimant's logging operations on Zorutu Land being the Land covered by Licence A10715 dated 3rd October 2007.

[4] The alleged "breaches of the law" by the Defendants, were allegedly to have been committed on or about September 2008 and on or about 18th January 2011.

[5] The standard of proof of contempt is akin to that in a criminal charge. That is to say, beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies upon the Claimant. Contempt proceedings are specific. That is to say, that the Respondents cannot be attached for contempt unless each of them had actually been involved in the alleged contempt.

(6] The Claimant's case is that the Court Order must be complied with by the Defendants whilst it stands. The Defendants could pursue options available to them if they were not happy with the Order. The options would include either a Variation Order, a Stay Order, a Setting a-side Order or an Appeal. The Respondents have not utilized any of these options.

[7] The map of Zorutu Land is set out on page 151 of the Index of Pleadings and Bundles of Agreed Documents Book, filed on 2 September 2009. This map shows that Zorutu Customary Land does not merge with the sea. This is because another piece of Customary Land on which Hambere Harbour is situated on separates Zorutu Customary Land from the sea.

[8] A map annexed to Alick Lamubeti's sworn statement filed on 24 August 2011 shows properties such as sego palms, teak trees, eucalyptus trees, swim trees, nut trees, edible fruit trees, coconuts, gardening area and residential houses surrounded Hambere Harbour. The Defendants do not dispute that their relatives and supporters blocked the sea from the claimant landing its logging machines and equipment ashore at Hambere Harbour on 18 January 2011. They say, they did so out of fear that their properties mentioned on this paragraph would be destroyed by the Claimant while making its way to its concession land. There being no evidence of any discussion regarding compensation for damages of such properties between the Claimant and the Defendants

[9] The Claimant submits that the Defendants were in contempt of the Court Order referred to in paragraph (2) above. That Order prohibits the Defendants, their relatives and supporters from interfering in any manner with the Claimant's logging operation on Zorutu Customary Land, covered by its Felling Licence. There is no evidence that the Defendants, their relatives and supporters were in breach of that order. There is no evidence that the Land under water where the blockade occurred is part of Zorutu Customary Land. There is no evidence that the blockade occurred within Zorutu Customary Land. There are no factual bases for this application. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.

ORDER:

1. Application is dismissed.

2. The Claimant to pay the Defendants' Costs of the Application.

THE COURT