CC 284 2002 HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 284 of 2002

GIBSON EDDIE
(representing himself and all members of Dehmah Family of Gatokae Island, Western Province)

-V-

LUPA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED 
Anors

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Brown PJ)

Civil Case No. 284 of 2002

Date of hearing: 24 November 2003 
Date of Judgment: 24 November 2003 

Mr. D. Tigulu for the applicant 

Customary Land - claim for damage for trespass - ownership - proper forum For hearing of dispute 

Customary Land - jurisdiction of the High Court where ownership rights arise for consideration 

The plaintiff claims as customary landowner by family. The statement of claim is touched on in the reasons. 

Held: 1. The statement of claim on its face pleads facts about dealings with customary land.

2. The Local Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters involving dealings and disputes with customary land, in accordance with s. 231 (1) of the Land and Titles Act.

3. No proceedings have been instituted in the Local Court, so the question of the appropriateness or otherwise, of relief, does not arise

Cases cited 

Gandly Simbe -v- East Choiseul Area Council - Civil Appeal 8/97 (followed) 

Legislation considered 

Land and Titles Act (cap 133) s.231 (1) 
Local Courts Act (cap 19) s.12 

Summons for damages for trespass 

Reasons for Decision 

In his statement of claim the plaintiff alleges sale ownership of Beu customary land and harbour. He says this ownership is independent from the members of Lupa tribe and Lupa customary land as a whole. Earlier he said Beu land is within Lupa customary land on Gatokae Island, Western Province. 

These issues are not the province of this court. His standing to institute proceedings is impugned by his very statements. 

Gandly Simbe (1) per Macpherson JA at 19 

“In providing that a local court is, subject to ss 8E, 8F of the Local Courts Act, to have exclusive jurisdiction in a civil proceedings arising in connection with customary land s 231(1) of the Land and Titles Act does no more than provide for or regulate, within the meaning of Clause 3 (3) of the Schedule 3, the proof or the manner in which and the purposes for which customary law is in this particular, to be recognized and the resolution of conflict of customary law provided for. 

There is no justification for regarding s. 231 (1) as being in conflict with s.77 (1) of the Constitution and invalid. To the extent that a different view may have been adopted by Commissioner Crome in Fugui -v - Solmac Construction Co Ltd. (1982) SILR 100, 104 the decision should on this point not now be regarded as authoritative.” 

The High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate customary land claims in this manner. The proper forum is the council of chiefs, and the Local Court (see Land and Titles Act (cap. 33, s.231 (1) and Local Courts Act (cap 19) s.12). 

The summons is struck out. 

Order 

Summons struck out. 

BROWN PJ