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

Ruaniu Ltd v Kalahaki Timbers Ltd [2013] SBHC 33; HCSI-CC 448 of 2011 (4 April 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 448 of 2011

BETWEEN:

RUANIU LIMITED
Claimant

AND:

KALAHAKI TIMBERS LIMITED
First Defendant

AND:

GALLEGO RESOURCES LIMITED
Second Defendant

Hearing : 4 March 2013
Ruling : 4 April 2013

P. Tegavota for the Claimant
G. Suri for the First Defendant
D. Nimepo for the Second Defendant

RULING

[1] This is an application by the First Defendant filed on 16 August 2012. It seeks the following orders: 1. An Order that the interlocutory injunction made by this court on 2 December 2011 and perfected on 6 December 2011 be reviewed and varied as follows: (a) That the road access be allowed to the Respondents pursuant to the provisions of section 115 of the Land and Titles Act. (b) That in so far as the Respondents have relocated their log pond to a new site at Marumbo log pond, injunction order over the Vutusata log pond be now discharged. 2. Further and other orders as the court deems fit. 3. Costs in the cause.

[2] The order of 2 December 2011 which the First Defendant seeks to review and vary is relevantly in these terms:

"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: [1] An interlocutory injunction is granted restraining the First and Second Respondents by themselves, their servants or agents from entering the Applicant's registered lands in the Fixed Term Estates in Parcel Numbers 191-004-2 and Parcel Number 190-004-3 for the purpose of road access and Log pond and other logging related activities".

[3] The law under which it sought review and variation of the above order is section 115 of the Land and Titles Act (Cap. 133). This section deals with the process which the person seeking a right way over registered land owned by another person must follow. So in this case, the Defendants must first discuss road access with the Claimant. Then if Claimant and the Defendants do not agree on the location of or to the terms and conditions of right of way, then the Defendants will refer the issues to the Commissioner of Lands who will make his decision on them and may assess compensation to be paid to the Claimant by the Defendants either for loss or damage in respect of land over which the right of way is granted. But if either the Claimant or the Defendant is aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of Lands, may appeal to the High Court within three months.

[4] The process set out under section 115 has yet to begin in this case. The court will merely involve in the process on appeals against decisions of the Commissioner of Lands. This court does not have power to grant the orders sought by Defendant in this application. Accordingly the application is refused. Order accordingly.

THE COURT