HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Baeika Puia v Lilivae	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	5 June 2019	
		
Parties: 	Willie Baeika Puia v Hensley lilivae and Vonnie Nato, Metcalfe T Puia, Morley T Puia and Billy T Puia 	
		
Date of hearing: 	18 April 2019	
		
Court file number(s): 	CC 538 of 2017	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Keniapisia; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The Claim has no real prospect of succeeding and should terminate early via summary judgment
Claim is dismissed with cost against claimant, on standard basis.	
		
Representation: 	Mr. C Rarumae for the Claimant/Respondent 
Mr. C Hapa for the first and second Defendants/Applicant	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 538 of 2017

WILLIE BAEIKA PUIA
Claimant

V

HENSLEY LILIVAE AND VONNIE NATO
First Defendant

METCALFE T PUIA, MORLEY T PUIA AND BILLY T PUIA
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 18 April 2019
Date of Ruling: 5 June 2019

Mr. C Rarumae for the Claimant/Respondent
Mr. C Hapa for the first and second Defendants/Applicant
RULING ON APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1. 	First and second defendants (“defendants”) applied for summary judgment, because they consider the claim has no real prospect of success, in that the reliefs sought (Relief 1 – 7) are matters of custom, which the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain.
2. 	The issues raised in the claim can be briefly stated:-
(i) 	Whether claimant is the rightful person entitled to traditional inheritance from parties’ deceased father, late Javin Puia (internal family issue)?
(ii) 	Whether claimant is the rightful person to inherit leadership and land rights from parties’ deceased father over Ahenoa community and Ahenoa land, on Bellona (community issue)?
3. 	As against defendants, claimant assert entitlement in custom (by inheritance) of traditional rights (leadership and land rights) within late Javin Puia’s family. At the same time, claimant assert leadership and land rights entitlement in custom over Ahenoa community and Ahenoa land on Bellona. Claimant assert the defendants are not entitled to inherit all these rights from the parties’ father, late Javin Puia. As the elder son, claimant is entitled in custom to family and Ahenoa community leadership and Ahenoa land rights, not the defendants. It is worth mentioning that claimant and defendants are all brothers and sisters, siblings of late Javin Puia, from Bellona who died in 2014.
4. 	Defendants do not truly dispute claimant’s entitlement in custom to inherit traditional rights from parties’ late father, as he is the elder son. But defendants draw distinction and assert that whilst claimant is the figurehead leader of the late Javin Puia family, he is not necessarily the chief of Ahenoa community. And he is not necessarily the sole owner of Ahenoa land. For defendants say Ahenoa community is comprised of 5 plots of lands, owned by different family units. The plot within Ahenoa land that belong to claimant and defendants’ father, late Javin Puia family is locally called Ahea. Defendants agree claimant is the figure head leader of late Puia family over Ahea plot. Defendants say claimant inherited land rights over Ahea land, but such right is inclusive of his other brothers (2nd defendants) as “willed” by their late father. And the first defendant sisters cannot be barred from going to Ahea plot or Ahenoa community, on Bellona, though they have now migrated to other places in Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, upon marriage. The sisters had little or no dispute over Ahea land, recognising their marital status, but questions why their brother is seeking relief to forbid them from going to Ahea plot, or Ahenoa community, on Bellona.
5. 	From the materials, it is apparent that this is very much an internal family quarrel between brothers and sisters. The family dispute also extends to leadership and land right/ownership issues for Ahenoa community and Ahenoa land on Bellona. Claimant say, whilst these internal family and Ahenoa community issues, remain outstanding, this court should intervene to grant interim injunctions or restraining orders, to give space for parties and Ahenoa community to work through and resolve their issues. Whilst I can say there are issues, I am hesitant to divulge into the detail facts, which are matters within the parties’ family and community domain.
6. 	One thing is clear from what I have discussed thus far. And that is, there are issues disclosed from the statement of claim. In the normal course of things, these issues should proceed to trial and not terminate early through summary judgment. But a closer look at the reliefs sought, would certainly exclude the court’s jurisdiction to entertain this claim. Claimant seek reliefs in the nature of interim restraining orders against the defendants. I should state the reliefs sought briefly:-
(i) 	Court to declare that claimant is the rightful person to inherit leadership and land rights/ownership from parties’ late father, both within late Javin Puia family, Ahenoa community and Ahenoa land, on Bellona (Reliefs 1 and 2).
(ii) 	Restrain defendants, their agents etc. from entering Ahenoa land and Ahenoa community (Relief 3).
(iii) 	Restrain defendants from claiming traditional authority and ownership over Ahenoa land (Relief 4).
(iv) 	Restrain defendants, agents etc. from conducting business and other activities on Ahenoa land (Relief 5).
(v) 	The orders sought are interim measures until parties and Ahenoa community resolve their family and community issues and penal notice for breach of orders (Reliefs 6 and 7).
7. 	I can see that attempts to solve the issues raised in this claim, in custom, have been made, resulting in two conflicting chiefs’ decisions, at present. One decision is in favour of the claimant. The other is in favour of the defendants. This means that the issues of custom remain outstanding, either before the chiefs or next level at local court. And these are matters of custom (leadership and land ownership). And whilst issues of custom stands alive, I cannot make declarations on leadership and land ownership, whether within late Javin Puia’s family or Ahenoa community or Ahenoa land. I cannot make interim injunction orders either, for the same reason. I am fearful, granting interim orders would worsen the situation for parties. For if I grant interim restraining orders against defendants and their agents, I may be making orders against Ahenoa community residents. Court orders may be used as weapons to further undermine the already volatile situation. The volatile situation, I sense, are quarrels between brothers and sisters. It is inappropriate to seek interim injunction orders, to act as “buffer zones” between party siblings, whilst they make efforts to resolve their differences. This is what is pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 of claim. This is what is prayed for in Reliefs 6 and 7. It is also inappropriate to seek injunction orders that will likely affect Ahenoa community or its residents who may find themselves attached to the defendants in this proceeding.
8. 	Having said all that, it is not to be confused that this court does have jurisdiction in appropriate cases to issue interim injunction, but only to aid the work of the chiefs in the resolution of customary land disputes. The High Court can do this (lend its aiding role), to maintain status quo, where land dispute is referred to the Chiefs, Local Court or Customary Lands Appeal Court and the dispute is pending. Here there is no pending dispute before the Chiefs. What we now have are two conflicting Chiefs decisions; sitting on grudges between siblings of late Javin Puia.
9. 	On the materials, I cannot say this is a dispute involving or filed on behalf of Ahenoa community. There is no evidence that the said community sanctioned filing this case. This is a family dispute and the dispute is in effect being extended to include Ahenoa community and Ahenoa land. This is not an appropriate case where this court can lend its aiding role to maintain status quo, whilst a dispute is pending before the chiefs. The appropriate situations would normally arise in say logging, where parties dispute land ownership and a referral is made to chiefs. Pending chief’s determination, this court would issue injunction to maintain status quo, under its aiding role (well- known Court of Appeal Gandley Simbe). Status quo is the virgin state of the land should not be logged whilst a dispute on ownership is pending.
10. 	I will therefore have to grant the summary judgment sought because the issues or reliefs, I found in this claim are matters of custom. This court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate issues of custom. And the facts of this case do not present an appropriate case where this court can render its aiding role to maintain status quo, whilst a land dispute is pending before the chiefs.
10.1	The claim has no real prospect of succeeding and should terminate early via summary judgment.
10.2	Claim is dismissed with cost against claimant, on standard basis.
THE COURT
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE