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

Irofi v Sulimae [2020] SBLC 3; Land Case 2 of 2000 (24 July 2020)

IN THE MALAITA LOCAL COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil jurisdiction (customary land) LAND CASE NO: 2 OF 2000

IN THE MATTER OF GWANATAFU / ABARAFI LANGI CUSTOMARY LAND

BETWEEN: THOMAS IROFI OF NGALIFASI
[PLAINTIFFS]

AND: JOSEPH SULIMAE OF MAKEFE DARIMASI

[DEFENDANTS]

Date of hearing: 20 July 2020

Date of the ruling (oral): 24 July 2020

[Attendance]
Plaintiff appears in person
Defendant appears in person

Ruling on Preliminary Inquiry

Introduction

This matter come before the court on the 20 of July 2020, issue of bringing the matter forth before this court is to identify the procedural matter on the filing system.

The file consist of two settlement Form1 and Form 11, which was done administratively in 2000 and 2004. The unaccepted settlement was filed in by the current plaintiff against the year 2000 Subea house of chiefs, which was in favor to the defendant party however upon the settlement pending before the Local court, other settlement was held at the St. Paul Auki year 2004 before the Subea Chiefs panel and gave the accepted settlement which was sign by the two parties and forward to this court again by the plaintiff, and stated to no longer needed or depend upon his first filing of Form 1. However administratively the Clerk has no authority convers upon him to put aside the first chief settlement but only accepted the Form 11 base on the section 14 (Local court Act.Cap19) of 90 days did filed and register the accepted settlement as the decision of the Court.

The Local Court now listed the matter purposely to satisfy the Local court jurisdiction in deciding any matter shall before the Local Court (which refer to the panel).

Therefore, the court opens to the party to justify the two settlement before this court.

Submission
[plaintiff Case]

Plaintiff state his following points:

1. He do not understand why the matter come before the court, as from the correspondent the Clerk /officers of the Local Court already confirms that Form 11 was the order of the court.
2. He agreed to dismiss the Form 1 (unaccepted settlement) because the earliest settlement is 2004 and he with the Defendant already agreed to the outcome of the chief’s settlement at St. Paul.
3. Acknowledge that he never goes before the Local Court panel with regarding this matter.

[Defendant Case]

Timothy Tom is the prime spokesperson for the defendant, however he did not specify he connection with Mr. Joseph Sulimae. Thereby introduce this matter as stated in the introduction and further seek the court for the chiefs who preside at the St. Paul 2004 to clarify the matter.

The chief’s vice president do seek to disqualify the 2004 settlement and uphold the 2000 settlement base on this reason.

1. The 2004 is an abuse to the Court process, because it is the chiefs under the same Subea house of Chiefs do reheard the matter again without knowing the previous settlement been heard.
2. Further seek the court for another chiefs to testify, however the court summon one chiefs from the year 2000 to also come before the court to justify claim reasons.

Both the chiefs (Rex Ranoga & Reginald Iliwane) appear before the court as a witness to the case and denied the year 2004 settlement was not processed as all due to the defendant witnesses have not arrived to the settlement therefore seek the court not to consider the year 2004 settlement and consider the year 2000 settlement to be proceed because on the year 2000 settlement was done fully with witnesses arrive to support the defendant claim. Moreover, both of them denied signing the Accepted Form 1.

For 2000 settlement, the chief Reginald Iliwane was one of the chiefs preside in that settlement and was written in the From 1 (unaccepted settlement). When the panel question him concerning the settlement, he denied sit in the settlement and denied signing the settlement.

Court Analysis

The plaintiff when questioning, do acknowledge both the From 1 and Form 11 settlement was done in full and only seek the court to properly counsel the Form 1 base upon the settlement is complete and there’s no issue now between him and the defendant.

The court also remind itself that it has not convened to determine who owns the land but only to clearlifiy and decide upon the procedural matter of case management, also as it been determine before this penal convened by the administration, in accordance with section 14 (1) (Local Court Act.Cap19). sec 14 (2) Form 11 was properly filed, chiefs signature was on it and section (3) do validates that Quota ‘any decision recorded by the local court pursuant to sub section (1) shall be deemed to be a decision of the local court for the purpose of any law.’

Hence, the court cannot contradicted itself by reheard the matter and give another ruling thus far too only uphold the Accepted settlement (form 11) as court decision hereon.
The aggrieved party may seek review or appeal to the court of relevant jurisdiction within time.

Ruling

1. Unaccepted settlement in year 2000 is hereby dismissed.
2. Accepted settlement shall be a decision of the Local Court.
3. No order of cost
   

The Court

Philip Waletobata (Acting President of Local Court)

Eddie Wasi (Local Court Member)

Atali Ramo (Local Court Member)

Angella Ete (Clerk)