IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS 

(Faukona PJ)

Civil Case No:  444 of 2013 

BETWEEN:  ROBERT TAPOLO and ROBIN MESEPITU 	Claimants 
	          (Representing themselves and the Sikuni 
		 tried)	

AND:  	JAMES DIKO, BOAZ AROTO, JOSEPH KIBI 	First 
		and TREVOR OLAVAE					Defendant

AND:  	ATTORNEY-GENERAL 					Second 
		(Representing the Commissioner of Lands)		Defendant		

AND:  	ATTORNEY-GENERAL 					Third 
		(Representing the Registrar of Titles)    		Defendant 

Date of Hearing:  19th August 2016

Date of Ruling:     4th October 2016.

Mr A. Rose for the Claimants 
Mr P. Afeau for the First Defendants
No Counsel for the Second and Third Defendants in attendance

RULING

Faukona PJ:  This application derived from a cause of action filed on 19th November 2013 in a Category A claim.  The application is basically for leave to allow the Claimants to amend their claim. The Claimants are averting that certain documents disclosed in response to direction orders on 17th June 2015, and labelled as documents 32, 34 and 36 are false.  Hence to accommodate the allegations they ought to be pleaded in the claim, hence, sought leave to amend the claim.

2.	I noted through submissions that this case has passed disclosure stage and is ready for trial.  To grant leave at this stage would definitely prolong the case with costs accumulating acknowledging the fact that the claim was filed on 19th November 2013.	
		
3.	I have the privilege to read the statement of case and noted the major relief sought is rectification of the register on the grounds of mistake and or by fraud, pursuant to S.229 of the Land and Titles Act.	
		
4.	Upon pursuing through, I also noted that the statement of facts in paragraphs 23 pleaded mistake or fraud which were particularised in the same paragraph. 	
		
5.	Quite apart from that, I also read the three documents disclosed at the process of disclosure, which forms the basis of this application.  The first document is a minute of a meeting by the Sikuna tribe held at Maravari village, Vella La Vella, on 27th January 1999.  The second document is more or less a memorandum enclosed by various Chiefs of Vella La Vella or from that part of Vella La Vella. The third document is a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Lands disclosing the names of the final trustees of the sikuna land tribe who will be the signatories in facilitating the transfer of the title to them as representatives of the tribe.  	
		
6.	Those three documents alleged to have been used to convince the Commissioner of Lands to transfer the title in PE in the seven parcel numbers being the subject of this case.  	
		
7.	To resolve the Claimants impasse and confusion, I am of the view that the amendment to the claim is not the only option.  It ought to be noted that the documents were disclosed under a sworn statement and the way forward, is as I have said in paragraphs 5 and 6 above. Secondly, there is no new issue raised by the documents. They are documents associated with the derivation and transfer of PE titles to the lands.  It was a process, which led up to the transfer of the lands that the Claimants alleged was done by mistake and or fraud, which had been pleaded and particularized in the statement of case. What else more would the Claimants search for?	
		
8.	Significantly, the rules have expressly stated that documents disclosed in accordance with Rule 11.7 may be included in the Court Book. Rule 12.1 states unless another party objects to their inclusion on the basis of relevance or other basis available. A statement intended to be included in the court Book under Rule 12.1 (c) may be objected to in whole or in part when any objection may be heard at the PTC.  See also Rule 8.3. (a) (ii) and (iv). 	
		
9.	In so far as the right to cross examine or address on weight, for instance at trial, where the Court determines that the statement or the part objected will be allowed in the Court Book and go into evidence. The fact that the statement or parts are included in the Court Book shall not be proof of the matters contained in such statement rather they will be evidence subject to attack in the normal course at trial, and the fact that they have been excluded at PTC will not prevent the defendant’s evidence being taken at trial before closing of the parties case where the party seeking to include such statement shows to the satisfaction of the Court that the propose evidence is relevant.	
		
10.	I must reiterate therefore, to grant leave at this stage to amend the claim, in my view, will prolong the case further with accumulating costs, considering the fact that the case was filed on 19th November 2013, almost three (3) years ago.  The longer the case is prolonged will defeat the whole purpose and objective of the rules enshrine in rules 1.3 and 1.4. 	
11.	With the reasons I have exposed, it is pertinent and reasonable that I refuse to grant leave to amend the claim.	
		
	Orders:	
		
1.	Application for leave to amend the claim refused.	
		
2.	The Claimants to pay the costs of the first Defendants.	
		
3.	Case adjourn to a date determine by the Registrar for mention.	

		
		
	The Court.