HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Lauri’i v Limai	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	10 September 2025	
		
Parties: 	Charles Lauri’i v Joseph Limai and Bakwailangi Sawmilling & Logging Company, Samlimsan (SI) Limited 	
		
Date of hearing: 	28 August 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	280 of 2023 	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Bird; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. 	I hereby enter summary judgment in favour of the Claimant to the effect that the 1st and 2nd Defendant have conducted illegal logging within Bina Gwelabu customary land. As a consequence of that order there will be a subsequent assessment hearing held to determine the orders sought in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the amended claim. Cost shall be determined upon finalisation of assessment hearing. I hereby order accordingly.	
		
Representation: 	Mr. Jack To’ofilu for the Claimant/Applicant 
Mr. Brodwin John Zama for the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r 9.57
Forest Resources and Timber Utilization Act [cap 140], S 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12	
		
Cases cited:	Golden Springs Limited v Paia [1991] SBCA 11	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 280 of 2023

BETWEEN:

CHARLES LAURI’I 
(representing himself as a member of Bina Gwelabu Tribe, East Fataleka, Malaita Province, Solomon Islands)
Claimant

AND:

JOSEPH LIMAI and BAKWAILANGI SAWMILLING & LOGGING COMPANY
First Defendant

AND:

SAMLIMSAN (SI) LIMITED
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 28 August 2025
Date of Decision: 10 September 2025

Mr. Jack To’ofilu for the Claimant/Applicant 
Mr. Brodwin John Zama for the 1st and 2nd Defendants/ Respondents 
RULING ON APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
Bird PJ:
1. 	This proceeding involves customary land issues associated with logging issues. Mr. Charles Lauri’i (Claimant) is suing Joseph Limai and Bakwailangi Sawmilling & Logging Company (1st Defendant) and Samlimsan (SI) Limited (2nd Defendant) alleging illegal logging operations on Bina Gwalabu customary land. The Claimant has filed a Category A claim seeking various reliefs. A subsequent amended claim was thereafter filed.
2. 	The Claimant asserts that he is a prominent member of the Bina Gwelabu Tribe. His tribe owns the Bina Gwelabu customary land. He alleges that the 1st and 2nd Defendants have entered into the Bina Gwelabu customary land without a valid felling license and conducted logging activities therein. There are restraining orders in place to this date.
3. 	The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed their amended defence to the amended claim. The Claimant however believes that the 1st and 2nd Defendants amended defence has no real prospect of defending the claim. He has filed an application for summary judgment.
The application
4. 	The Claimant’s application is premised upon rule 9.57 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (CPR) which provides:
	Rule 9.57 -The claimant may apply to the court for a summary judgment where the defendant has filed a response or a defence and believes that there is no real prospect of defending the claimant’s claim.
5. 	In support of the application, the Claimant has filed a sworn statement deposing to the facts he is relying upon. He is a prominent member of the Bina Gwelabu Tribe. His tribe owns the Bina Gwelabu customary land. That is the land in issue in this proceeding. The 1st and 2nd Defendants were conducting an illegal logging operation therein.
6. 	The Claimant’s case is based on the assertion that the 1st and 2nd Defendants do not have a valid felling license entitling them to conduct their logging activities on the disputed land. The 1st and 2nd Defendants were using Felling License No. A10501 to carry out logging therein. That felling license is in respect of Bakoilangi customary land. It does not cover Bina Gwalebu customary land.
7. 	That assertion is not disputed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. They nonetheless say that they were authorised to enter and harvest timber inside the land for domestic use by landowners. In order to access Bakoilangi customary land, they need an access road through the disputed land. They constructed an access road therein.
8. 	It is further their position that the 2nd Defendant was invited by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Bina Gwelebu Trust Board to enter the disputed land. They also rely on a Road Access Agreement signed by the Bina Gwelabu Customary Land Committee and the 2nd Defendant on the 19th April 2023. There is also a Supplementary Agreement signed by the Bina Gwelabu Landowners and the 2nd Defendant on the 1st May 2023. They therefore are of the view that their entry into the disputed land was authorised and any logging operation conducted within the disputed land is not illegal as alleged.
9. 	Having noted that the 1st and 2nd Defendants do not dispute having no felling license covering the disputed land, I will discuss the defence that they are relying upon. I have had the opportunity to peruse the letter of invitation to the 2nd Defendant dated the 1st May 2023. That letter is titled “Request for logging operation at Bina Gwelabu land”. The content of the letter is clear and unambiguous. They requested the 2nd Defendant to extract the remaining logs that were left in their previous operation. They also wish to have the logs extracted to be exported.
10. 	In the Road Access Agreement, it is also clear that the purpose is to assist the 2nd Defendant enter into the disputed land and use it for logging related activities. I have especially noted the obligation of the company on page 2 of that agreement.
11. 	With the Supplementary Agreement, the Bina Gwelabu Landowners were referred to as the resource owners. The 2nd Defendant was referred to as the contractor under the Bakoilangi License. It is noted from the company’s obligation on the bottom of page 1 to page 2 of the agreement that the purpose was for logging on the disputed land.
12. 	From their own evidence, it is obvious that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were and have been conducting logging operation inside and within the disputed land since on or about May 2023 up until a restraining order was issued by this court on the 22nd June 2023 or thereabout. 
13. 	In this country, if a person, a company or anyone else for that matter intends to carry out any form of logging operation, they must adhere to and follow the laws of the land. The law that governs logging is the Forest Resources and Timber Utilisation Act (Cap 140) (FRTUA). The bottom line therefore is that any person whether it be a company, business name or individuals who wishes to conduct any logging operation must have a valid felling license covering that land.
14. 	The process that must be followed in such an instant is contained in sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the FRTUA. The requirements includes an application in the prescribe Form 1 must lodged with the office of the Commissioner of Forest. That application must be heard and determined by the appropriate provincial assembly. If the application is approved a Form 2 is published detailing the land names and names of persons who were determined as being lawfully able to grant timber right on the lands.  From thereon, a felling license (Form 3) is issued upon signing of a Standard Logging Agreement (Form 4). When this process is complete, then logging operation may commence.
15. 	I have noted from their evidence that the 1st and 2nd Defendants have gone through that very process during their previous logging operation on the disputed land. The Claimant was one of the determined trustees over the land. Felling License No A 10561 was issued to the 1st Defendant on the 6th October 2011. The license expired on the 6th October 2016. That felling license was not renewed. The 1st Defendant’s Felling License No A 10501 was issued to them on the 3rd July 2019. It expired on the 3rd July 2024. The alleged illegal operation on the disputed land occurred between May to June 2023 during the existence of F/L 10501 but having noted that the felling license does not cover the disputed land.
16. 	The 1st and 2nd Defendants say that the harvesting of logs inside the disputed land was for domestic use. The logs extracted were not intended to be exported. I am not convinced that it was not their intention to export the extracted logs. The letter of invitation, the Road Access Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement that they produced as evidence in this case is contrary to their stated position contained in paragraph 7 of this ruling.
17. 	I can therefore safely conclude that the entry and subsequent logging activities within the disputed land by the 1st and 2nd Defendants was done contrary to the provisions of sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the FRTUA. The 1st Defendant does not have a valid felling license over Bina Gwelabu customary land between May to June 2023. Their felling license covering the land has expired on the 6th October 2016 and was never renewed to date. Their Felling License No 10501 that was purportedly used by the 2nd Defendant to gain access into the disputed land does not cover that land.
18. 	In assessing the amended defence of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and applying the ratio in relation to applications for summary judgment in the case of Golden Springs Limited v Paia [1999] SBCA 11, CAC 19 of 1998, it is reasonably clear to me that from all of the materials and evidence produced by the parties in this case, they have allowed me to be able to reach a definite and certain conclusion. 
19. 	I have taken note of the court’s jurisdiction to summarily terminate a proceeding as discussed by the Court of Appeal in the Golden Spring case. Such jurisdiction must be used sparingly. In any event and by the case authority and together with the contravention of the requirements stipulated under the FRTUA as well as the admission by the 1st and 2nd Defendants that they do not have a valid felling license over the disputed land, I am of the view that the amended defence of the 1st and 2nd Defendants have no real prospect of success. I hereby enter summary judgment in favour of the Claimant to the effect that the 1st and 2nd Defendant have conducted illegal logging within Bina Gwelabu customary land. As a consequence of that order there will be a subsequent assessment hearing held to determine the orders sought in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the amended claim. Cost shall be determined upon finalisation of assessment hearing. I hereby order accordingly.
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge