HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 160 of 1995

JOHN WESLEY TALASASA

-v-

SOLOMON ISLANDS ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY AND TWO OTHERS

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.)

Hearing: 22 June 1995
Judgment: 22 June 1995

J. W. Talasasa in person
A. Radclyffe for Defendant

Reasons for Decision:

MURIA CJ: 	On the 22nd June 1995, I refused the plaintiff's application for an interim injunction against the First Defendant, SIEA, ("the Authority"). I gave reasons briefly for my decision and said that I will furnish additional reasons later. I do so now briefly.

On 15 May 1995, I refused an application by the plaintiff in CC43/95 for an interim injunction against, among other defendants, the Authority who is the Fifth Defendant in that case.

The application by the plaintiff against the Authority in CC 43/95 was for an injunction restraining it from entering Kazukuru Left Hand Land and from laying electricity cables upon the land without the plaintiff's permission. In the course of the hearing, the Electricity agreed that it had laid cables from Noro to Ziata Water Pumping Station and would do so also as far as Munda. It relied on the permission given by one Rex Biku, the second defendant in the present case. The plaintiff's application was refused.

The argument by the plaintiff in the application in CC 43/95 was that the Authority was a trespasser when it entered Kazukuru Left Hand Land and laid electricity cables without the plaintiff's permission. To counter that argument, the Electricity Authority relied on the permission given to it by one Rex Biku who is the second defendant in the present case allowing the Authority to enter Kazukuru Left Hand Land to lay electricity cables. The Authority did so up to Ziata Water Pumping Station and would continue to do so up to Munda relying on the permission given by Mr Biku.

Obviously, the serious issue to be tried in the main action is whether Mr Biku has the lawful authority to permit the Authority to enter Kazukuru Left Hand Land for the purpose of laying electricity cables.

It is for the plaintiff who will have to prove that Mr Biku has no right to grant permission to the Authority and thereby proving that the Authority is a trespasser. But that will have to be done at the trial of the action.

The Court had also found that no irreparable harm to the plaintiff would be caused by the refusal of the injunction in CC43/95. In the present case, I do not see what irreparable harm would be done to the plaintiff if the injunction is to be refused.

In the course of the hearing the court asked the plaintiff if Kazukuru Left Hand Land covers the area between Noro and Munda and he stated that it does. But he says that the present application is only concerned with the area from Ziata River to Munda. It may well be that his application now only covers the area he mentioned, but that is part of Kazukuru Left Hand Land which the Authority said that they had already obtained permission from Mr Biku to enter and lay electricity cables.

I do not think it helps the plaintiff to bring this sort of application concerning matters that had already been dealt with particularly where the matter is the same, the parties are the same and the issues are the same. It does not help. In fact it only adds complications to the process of finding resolutions to the problems which are being raised for determination by the court.

The present application is in reality a shortened version of that brought in CC43/95. I feel there is no merit in this application to warrant the court to consider it differently to that of the application brought in CC43/95.

Mr Radclyffe suggested that the Writ issued by the plaintiff disclosed no cause of action and so must be struck out. I feel I need not do that at this stage. However the determination of the issues in CC43/95 would no doubt have considerable effect on this case.

The present application is refused.

Costs in the cause.

(Sir John Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE