HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	D & D Properties Ltd v Attorney General 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	10 March 2026 	
		
Parties: 	D & D Properties Limited v Attorney General, Attorney General, Leslie Mani	
		
Date of hearing: 	20february 2026 	
		
Court file number(s): 	159 of 2023	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 		
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	i)	It is declared that the whole forfeiture process in respect of parcel number 191-035-254 is invalid and is hereby set aside.
ii)	The Fixed Term Estate in parcel number 191-035-254 is to be rectified by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the Claimant’s name. 
iii)	The issue of cost is to be settled by the parties upon negotiation.
iv)	Parties are at liberty to raise the issue of cost before the Registrar.	
		
Representation: 	Mr Ben Etomea for the Claimant 
Mr Philip Kelesi for the First and Second Defendant 
Mr Barnabas Upwe for the Third Defendants 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r 12.11
Land and Titles Act (Amendment) Act 2014, S 11, S 136, S 11 (1), S 139, Subsection (1) (a) to (e), S 8 C (6), 
Liquor Act [cap 144], Dangerous Drugs Act [cap 98]	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 159 of 2023

BETWEEN:

D & D PROPERTIES LIMITED
Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(in respect of the Commissioner of Lands)
First Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(in respect of the Registrar of Titles)
Second Defendant

AND:

LESLIE MANI
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 20 February 2026
Date of Decision: 10 march 2026

Mr Ben Etomea for the Claimant 
Mr Philip Kelesi for the First and Second Defendants 
Mr Barnabas Upwe for the Third Defendant 
RULING ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE OF LAW 
Bird PJ:
1. 	This is a claim involving forfeiture of land. D & D Properties Limited was the previous registered holder of a Fixed Term Estate in parcel number 191-035-254. The land was forfeited through the forfeiture process under the Land and Titles Act (Cap 133) by the 1st Defendant. Thereafter the land was registered by the 2nd Defendant in favour of Leslie Mani, the 3rd Defendant.
2. 	The Claimant complains that the forfeiture process was not properly carried out by the 1st Defendant and sought an order for rectification of the land register.
3. 	In their defence, the 1st Defendant admitted that there was no due compliance of the provision of section 11 of the Land and Titles (Amendment) Act 2014 (the Act). He made the decision to forfeit without the authority of the Land Board. There was no delegation to him by the Land Board. It was upon that admission that the Claimant filed the application for determination of preliminary issue of law under section 12.11 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (CPR).
4. 	Having discussed the background to this proceeding, the issue that the court must determine is whether or not judgment can be entered in favour of the Claimant without trial upon the 1st Defendant’s admission. 
5. 	Section 11 of the Act amended section 136 of the preceding law. The section extinguished the 1st Defendant powers to forfeit an estate. It provides and gives power to the Land Board to forfeit an estate. The section provides:-
	Section 11 (1)	Subject of section 139, the Board shall have the right to forfeit and estate if the owner –
a) 	Fails to pay rent incident to the estate when it becomes due;
b) 	Fails to perform any obligation on his part incidental to the estate;
c) 	Irrespective of any contrary time period referred to in the lease, fails to develop the land in accordance with the development obligation incident thereto within a period of three years from the date of transfer or grant;
d) 	Or any person in occupation of the land has been convicted by a court for any offence relating to the possession or sale of liquor in the premises under the Liquor Act (Cap 144) or any drugs specified as dangerous drugs under the provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Cap 98) or;
e) 	Has permitted any person to enter or remain on the land and construct any dwelling house, whether of a permanent or temporary nature without first obtaining the consent of the Commissioner.
6. 	There is no issue between the parties that section 11 gives the Land Board absolute power and authority to forfeit an estate upon the reasons specified under subsection (1) (a) to (e) therein. It follows then that the admission by the 1st Defendant that the estate was forfeited without due compliance of that mandatory provision renders his actions as ultra vires his powers. His decision to forfeit the estate in parcel number 191-035-254 is therefore invalid.
7. 	The above view is supported by the provision of section 8 C (6) of the Act which provides:-
	Section 8C (6)	The Commissioner shall only exercise a power or carry out any function in subsection (4) if – 
a) 	There is a written directive from the Board to the Commissioner; and
b) 	It is satisfied, taking into account all necessary considerations, that the method of allocation will not have any adverse consequences.
8. 	It is obvious from the 1st Defendant’s admission that he carried out the whole forfeiture process in breach of section 8C (6) (a) of the Act. 
9. 	Further to the above, the court also views the reasons for forfeiture alluded to by the 1st Defendant as inapplicable at this stage. The Land Board is the correct authority to deal with the reasons under s. 11 (1) and that can be dealt with if and when it comes before the Board for their consideration. In any event, the 1st Defendant is not entitled to pre-empt the Board’s decision on the issue. 
10. 	Taking into account the above discussions, the court can enter judgment in favour of the Claimant at this stage. Judgment is hereby entered in the following terms:-
i)	It is declared that the whole forfeiture process in respect of parcel number 191-035-254 is invalid and is hereby set aside.
ii)	The Fixed Term Estate in parcel number 191-035-254 is to be rectified by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in the Claimant’s name. 
iii)	The issue of cost is to be settled by the parties upon negotiation.
iv)	Parties are at liberty to raise the issue of cost before the Registrar.
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge