HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Bau v Kavakesa	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	22 May 2025	
		
Parties: 	Billy Bau, Ayers Qalokisa, John Siata v Francis Kavakesa, Davidson Viloro, Paul Kaegabatu, Michael Gadole, Alphonse Taqimama, Nickson Paleka, 
Nicodimus Puabatu & Leo Kasimia, Eagon Rovokana and Patrick kuko	
		
Date of hearing: 		
		
Court file number(s): 	332 of 2022	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Maina; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The requirement of Rule 15.3.18(d) is not satisfied.
2. Claimant’s Claim for the Judicial Review is strike out,
3. Costs in the cause.	
		
Representation: 	Samuel Y for the Claimant 
Rotumana W for 1st and 2md Pendants 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2008 15 3.18, r 15.3.18 (a) (b) (c) and (d), r 15.3.18 (d)
Local Court Act (Amendment 1985) S 12, S 12 (2), S 14, S 11	
		
Cases cited:	Bavare v Nepara [2011] SBCA 22, J.J Ltd v Commissioner of Lands [2022] SBHC 79, 	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No 332 of 2022

BETWEEN:

BILLY BAU, AYERS QALOKISA, JOHN SIATA
Claimants

AND:

FRANCIS KAVAKESA, DAVIDSON VILORO,
PAUL KAEGABATU, MICHAEL GADOLE,
ALPHONSE TAQIMAMA, NICKSON PALEKA,
NICODIMUS PUABATU & LEO KASIMIA
First Defendant

AND:

EAGAN ROVOKANA AND PATRICK KUKO
Second Defendant

Date of Ruling: 22 May 2025

Samuel Y for the Claimant 
Rotumana W for 1st and 2nd Defendants 
RULING 
Maina J:
1. 	This matter is listed for conference and it is to consider whether the amended judicial review filed in the court met the requirements of the Chapter 15 3.18 of Civil Procedure Rules 2007.
2. 	As a judicial review matter, the court has to conduct a hearing on the requirement under Rule 15.3.18: 
(a) 	the claimant has an arguable case; and
(b) 	the claimant is directly affected by the subject matter of the claim; 
and
(c) 	there has been no undue delay in making the claim; and
(d) 	there is no other remedy that resolves the matter fully and directly.
3. 	The law on judicial review in this jurisdiction is quite straightforward that when the Court of Appeal in the case of Bavare v Nerapa
	“[14] Given this hierarchy of rights we are satisfied there was ample opportunity for the appellants’ complaints to be considered. It follows Chetwynd J was correct to conclude that the appellants had failed to satisfy the requirement of R: 15.3.18(d) and to strike out the claim.
4. 	DCJ Faukona in the case of J.J Ltd v Commissioner of Lands reiterate:
	“if one of these grounds is not made out the Court must not hear the claim” 
5. 	The reliefs sought in the amended judicial review is to quash the decision of Varisi Council of Chief on the boundaries and ownership of Qolele Ridge at Kalesuka land.
6. 	Claimants is challenging the First Defendant’s authority or rights to decide the ownership of the land.
7. 	The claimants seek the court’s inherent jurisdiction and for this conference to hold that, they have met four tests under Rule 15.3.18.
Brief Facts 
8. 	There is a dispute between the claimants and defendants on the boundary and ownership of Qolele block/portion of customary land. On 25th June 2022, the Varisi council of chiefs (Varisi chiefs) dealt with the dispute and resolved or determined in the favour of the Second Defendant.
9. 	The Claimants did not accept the Varisi chiefs’ decision and 31st May 2023 filed this amended claim for judicial review. 
10. 	The concern Qolele of customary land is in East Choisuel and the claimant is seeking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to deal with this issue
The issue 
11. 	The issue is whether the Claimant satisfied the requirements under Rule 15.3.18 (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2007?
12. 	With the requirements, (a)(b)(c) should not be the issue as what the claimants has disclosed in the pleadings and supporting sworn statements, they have an arguable as directly affected by the subject matter of the claim. 
13. 	It is this matter in Rule 15.3.18 (d) that no other remedy to resolve the matter, which the court must determine for the purpose.
14. 	Typically, with the provision of Rule 15.3.18 and particularly (d), it is that no other legal solution or recourse available that would adequately address or resolve the issue at hand.
15. 	This is a matter or case that involve the customary land and the law that provide for dispute of this type of land is the Local Court Act and; particularly section 12 of the Local Court Act commonly referred to as the “Local Court Amendment”
16. 	The provision affords the chiefs or other traditional leaders residing within the locality of the land in dispute to hear or deal with the dispute. The process of the dispute on customary land to come to local court or formal system of courts.
17. 	The chiefs have to make a decision on the dispute and if it is not accepted, that aggrieved party should lodge an unaccepted settlement form with the Local Court, which they have not made for this dispute.
18. 	At this stage, it is not a good evidence as to ownership of customary land as between the parties involved before the Chiefs until the decision is dealt with by a local court.
19. 	At the process with the chiefs or traditional leaders it also recognised the chiefs’ settlement on the dispute and if the decision is accepted by both parties to be recorded with the local court
20. 	The law is that before a dispute on customary land comes to the local court it must be dealt with by the chiefs or other traditional leaders residing within the locality of the land in dispute and who are recognised as such by both parties to the dispute.
21. 	Although this is not an appeal, however it states out clearly where to take the dispute if you are not happy with the chiefs’ decisions and that is to the local court. 
22. 	Counsel for the Claimants in his submission stated:
	“While the claimants acknowledge the process for appeal from the chiefs to the local court and then to the customary land appeal court, the claimant submit that they are exercising the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to deal with this issue”.
23. 	With the above quote the claimant knowledge the process of any dispute on customary land and or instead of going to the Local Court, the Claimants have instituted proceedings in this Court for Judicial Review, a remedy that is available if there is no other remedy that resolves the matter fully and directly.
24. 	While the High Court has supervisory role over the Chiefs by way of judicial review as it can do any other public tribunal or office, it must exercise the judicial review when there is no other remedy.
25. 	With the Claimants’ case for judicial review, there is a remedy or set out the law in the Local Court Act. A process with dispute relates or on customary land is quite clearly provided in the Local Court Act.
26. 	The Claimant fail to satisfy the requirement of Rule 15.3.18(d) and therefore Claim of the Judicial Review is strike out. 
ORDER OF THE COURT
1.	The requirement of Rule 15.3.18(d) is not satisfied.
2.	Claimant’s Claim for the Judicial Review is strike out,
3.	Costs in the cause.
THE COURT
Honourable Justice Leonard R. Maina
Puisne Judge