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

Kile v Central Magistrate Court [2013] SBHC 62; HCSI-CC 163 of 2012 (6 June 2013)

IN THE HIGH OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 163 of 2012

BETWEEN:

NELSON KILE
(Representing the Bachai Tribe)
Claimant

AND:

CENTRAL MAGISTRATE COURT
First Defendant

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF LANDS
Second Defendant

AND:

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Third Defendant

AND:

LISE DUKO
Fourth Defendant

AND:

SIA ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Fifth Defendant

RULING : 6 June 2013

Mr. Hapa for the Claimant
Mr. Kii for the First, Second and Third Defendants
Mr. Toito'ona for the Fourth Defendant

RULING

1. This is an application by the Fourth Defendant for the proceeding in this case to be struck out on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and hence an abuse of the court process.
   
2. The claim in this case was filed on 23 May 2012 by the Claimant. The Claimant seeks judicial review by way of declarations, inter alia, that the Claimant's appeal was filed in time as provided by law; the entire land acquisition process on Sareai customary is null and void; a mandatory order directing the magistrates court to hear the Claimant's appeal against the determination of the acquisition officer on Sareai customary land; and order to rectify the register of Sareai land by the removal of names of the Fourth Defendant John Sike as Perpetual Estate owners and removal of Sareai land from the land register and consequential orders enumerated in the claim.
   
3. The Fourth Defendant seeks to end this proceeding early through her application referred to earlier herein on the grounds that it failed to disclose reasonable cause of action and hence an abuse of the process of the court.
   
4. There seem to be issues raised in the claim to be determined at trial. These may include the registration of John Sike as joint owner of a Perpetual Estate in relation to Sareai land after his death; whether ownership of clan land by the Fourth Defendant was correct according to decisions of this court and the issue of payment of appeal fees by the Claimant yet to be heard by the Magistrate court.
   
5. The view of this court that this action is not frivolous and vexatious. This application is according dismissed with costs to the claimant.
   

ORDER: 1. Application dismissed.

2. The claim is not frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

3. The Fourth Defendant is to pay the Claimant's case of this application.

THE COURT