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

Rahari v Tropical Greens Co Ltd [2023] SBHC 38; HCSI-CC 95 of 2019 (23 May 2023)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 95 of 2019

BETWEEN

JUNIOR ALLAN RAHARI AND GODFREY RAHARI
Claimant

AND:

TROPICAL GREENS COMPANY LIMITED
First Defendant

AND:

BURWOOD (SI) LIMITED
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 4 May 2023
Date of Decision: 23 May 2023

Mr Michael Ipo for the Claimant
No appearance for the 1^st & Second Defendants

JUDGMENT ON ASSESSMENT

Bird PJ:

1. A category A claim was filed by the claimants against the 1^st and 2^nd defendants on the 23^rd May 2019. The basis of the claim was trespass. The land in issue was Ireihanua customary land, East Are’are, Malaita Province. By ex-parte interim orders dated 30^th May 2019, the defendants together with their servants, agents or anyone acting their authority were restrained from entering Ireihanua customary land for the purpose of conducting logging and related activities on that land. Other related orders were also made by the court on the said date.
2. On the 11^th September 2019, an amended claim (category A) was filed by the claimants. The basis of the claim in the amended claim was the validity of a timber rights process of the 1^st defendant. Consequential orders for damages was also sought by the claimants. On the 28^th October 2019, a defence was filed by the 1^st and 2^nd defendants. On the 16^th July 2020, a notice of discontinuance was filed in respect of the 3^rd defendants and a further amended claim was filed on the same date. The further amended claim was for damages for trespass, conversion and environmental degradation and for restraining orders. An amended defence was filed by the 1^st and 2^nd defendants on the 20^th August 2020. On the 24^th November 2020, the claimants filed an application for summary judgment against the 1^st and 2^nd defendants. On the 7^th May 2021, the court allowed the claimant’s application for summary judgment and imposed a permanent injunction against the 1^st and 2^nd defendants. The court also awarded damages to be assessed.
3. The orders of the court dated 7^th May 2021 were perfected on the 22^nd March 2023. Paragraph 2 of the orders was for damages to be assessed by the court. Consequent to those orders, an application for assessment of damages was filed on behalf of the claimants on the 23 February 2023. On the 1^st March 2023, the defendants were directed to file and serve their responses by the 24 April 2023 and the application for assessment was adjourned for hearing on the 4^th May 2023 at 9; 30am.
4. When the matter came before me for hearing on the 4^th May 2023, DBL Lawyers who was the lawyer on record for the defendants made no appearance. Having perused the court file, there was also no sworn statements or any report filed by DBL Lawyers on behalf of the defendants. Having being satisfied that the DBL Lawyers was aware of the application for assessment, I decided to hear Mr Ipo on his clients’ application.
5. Mr Ipo had tendered to court his clients’ submission in support of his application. To support his application, Mr Ipo relied upon the following documents namely:
   1. Ruling of the court delivered on the 7^th May 2021,
   2. Application filed on the 22^nd March 2023;
   3. Sworn statement of Jeffrey Kinifu sworn on the 9^th August 2022 and filed on the 12^th December 2022;
   4. Sworn statement of Allan Kisi Ofea sworn on the 30^th September 2022 and filed on the 14^th December 2022;
   5. Sworn statement of Joe Hurutarau sworn on the 8^th November 2022 and filed on the 14^th December 2022.
6. According to the application for assessment filed on the 22^nd March 2023, the claimants are claiming damages for trespass, conversion and environmental degradation. It is submitted by Mr Ipo that in respect of damages for trespass and environmental degradation, he will be relying on the environment assessment report annexed as “AKO – 1” to the sworn statement of Allan Kisi Ofea.
7. It is submitted that in the report marked AKO-1, it showed that damages done included severe damage to streams and rivers, removal and damage to top soil, removal of vegetation, damage to plants and forest ecosystems and damage and disturbance to faunal species. These classes of damages are discussed on pages 7 to 9 of the report by Allan Kisi Ofea in May 2021. The alleged intrusion upon the claimants’ land by the defendants occurred in about April 2019 and this claim was filed in the 22^nd May 2019. According to paragraph 3 of the report, damage was caused to the streams and rivers. It was found that the defendants used the streams as road access for skidding of logs across. They have also caused damage to a water source whilst skidding logs across. Those type of activities had caused contamination of the streams normally used by downstream communities. It was also found that since there was heavy rainfall experienced in the area, sediments will be washed into the rivers and streams and to the ocean causing turbidity in the surface waters.
8. From the report, I can also see that the removal of vegetation from the land through the illegal road access had exposed more sediments for surface runoffs when it rains. Soil erosion was evident from the pictures in the report. All the sediments will end up in the rivers and streams. It was also noted from the report that the illegal logging activities on the land had caused damage to plants and forest ecosystems. Damages of this nature can cause extinction of flora and fauna. The report further talked about a situation where the delivery and deposition of sediment or silt runoffs from disturbed soils could lead to siltation and sedimentation. In the investigative area, it has been seen that the clearing of the forest had changed the landscape and making the soil more vulnerable to soil sedimentation. Because of heavy rainfall in the area, top soil is carried into the water ways causing loss of the valuable topsoil and resulting in siltation and sedimentation. The soil is therefore not fertile to support the normal livelihood of the people living in the affected areas. It was obvious that a lot of disturbance was caused to the different ecosystems because of the logging operations therein. Important plant species for domestic use such as building materials, medicinal plants and others have been damages and or destroyed through the operation.
9. The report had also stressed that the damage to the land could be valued and assessed according to the Agroforest Rate Damage cost, Rehabilitation & Replacement cost and the Contingent Value cost. I have seen from the report that the Agroforest Rate Damage cost was calculated based on an agroforest rate for damage caused including alteration of the environment and the original biodiversity status of the site. It was stated in the report that a rate of SBD$8.80 was gazetted as damages on a square meter of agroforest areas. The total area that was damaged as per the report was an area of 40 hectares, an equivalent of 400,000 square meter. Thus the formula used to work out the damage in monetary value would be:

Total area damaged (sq. m) x Rate per sq. m

400,000 x$8.80= SBD$3,520,000.00

So the total cost in monetary value on Agroforest Rate Damage would be the sum of SBD$3,520,000.00.

10. On the Rehabilitation and Replacement cost, the scope of valuation of this nature included rehabilitation cost on the forest and wetland areas within the 40 hectares of land covered in the said report. One of the essential component of the exercise is to stock take the commercial species removed from the area as well as restoration work on site. Restoration work included replanting programmes, ecological restoration, soil and landscape rehabilitation, Wainiura headwater & streams ecological system restoration and labour and damage rehabilitation. After taking into account all of the sub-heads described, the total figure on Rehabilitation and Replacement cost was SBD$3,766,000.00.
11. The third aspect of valuation of damage that was carried out is the Contingent Value cost. This type of cost captures non-market goods and services. They included Provisioning Services, Regulating Services, Habitat and Supporting Services and Cultural Services. A total cost of SBD$1,000,000.00 was valued to cover this sub-head of cost. The report had added the three classes of cost described above and had come up to a grand total of SBD8,286,000.00 as cost of damages caused by the first and second defendants on Ireihanua customary land.
12. I have perused the submissions of counsel for the Claimants and have found that they are on par with the contents of the report submitted by the Claimants in support of this assessment. I am also assisted by the judgment of this court in the case of James Apaniai & Alphonse Waitara v Sunway (SI) Limited & others [2019] SBHC 95; HCSI-CC 572 of 2017. In that case, the court had awarded damages for trespass on land and destruction of environment at SBD$6,133,787.77 after considering the issue in a hearing. In this case, the first and second defendants did not take part in the proceeding and the court had taken into account the reports submitted and submissions by counsel, Mr Ipo.
13. Having read the sworn statement filed in court by the claimants and having read the reports by the relevant authorities, I can find that the claimants have satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the valued cost of damages caused by the first and second defendants on Ireihanua customary land is to the value of SBD8, 286,000.00.
14. On the issue of conversion of trees, I am referred to in the sworn statement of Jeffrey Kinifu filed on the 12^th December 2022. I have perused the Forestry Report attached to that sworn statement and marked “JK1”. According to that report a total of 132 stumps were counted from the subject customary land. The estimated value of the extracted logs was SBD$1,014,880.63. I am also satisfied on the balance of probability that the value of the logs extracted from the said land is as stated in the Forestry Report. The amount of SBD$1,014,880.63 for conversion is therefore added to the value of damages particularised in paragraph 11 above.
15. On the issue of liability of the first and second defendants for payments of damages, it is my view that both parties have severally and jointly contributed to the damages on the subject land. I can therefore hold that the first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of damages as per the total assessed cost of SBD$9,300,880.63. I also order that the first and second defendants pay statutory interest of 5% on the assessed value and conversion from the date of filing of the claim until settlement of the debt. I further order cost against the first and second defendants. I hereby order accordingly.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge