HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 205 of 2002

JP ENTERPRISES LTD,
OCEANIA TRADING COMPANY AND MIRE CHOKO

–V-

IVAN NGAI

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ)

Date of Hearing: 29th January 2003
Date of Ruling: 29th January 2003

Mr J Apaniai Plaintiffs
Mr R Ziza for the Defendant

MURIA, CJ; On 29th August 2002, an interlocutory injunction was issued against the defendant restraining him and others from threatening and harassing the plaintiffs and their servants and/or agents. Further order was made also for the defendant to deliver the outboard motor (Suzuki) and a ray boat belonging to the third plaintiff to the Police. Since then the parties have resolved part of the dispute and a result the third plaintiff has taken back his engine and canoe.

At the hearing I asked Mr Apaniai if there is any evidence to justify the continuation of the interim order particularly now that the defendant had indicated his intention not to threaten or harass the plaintiffs and their employees. Mr Apaniai suggested that there is nothing to prevent the defendant from going into the plaintiffs’ camp and exert threats on the plaintiffs and that the only way to be sure of that not being done is to allow the order of 29th August 2002 continue until the determination of the issues in this case.

I have allowed the defendant to give oral evidence in this case because of the difficulty of communicating with his solicitors in order to reply to the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of their application. Normally, in such a case, affidavit evidence in reply would have to be filed.

I have heard the defendant on oath, and read the evidence in the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant did not deny going into the plaintiffs’ camp on 22nd July 2002 with nine people and presented their claim of $2,000,000.00 for royalty payments for logs extracted and shipped from their land. No dispute had been raised by the plaintiffs that the defendant is a member of the tribe that owns the Nono land where the plaintiffs are only claiming damages and a restraining order against the defendant in this main action.

As regard the threats alleged by the plaintiffs in their affidavits, the defendant denied those. On the evidence, I am satisfied that the defendant and the nine people who went to the plaintiffs’ camp on 22nd July 2002, did so in a manner that was not peaceful and had caused concerned to the plaintiffs. This resulted in police being called to the camp. The police remained at the camp until the interim order was made. The police have since left the camp. The defendant have also since, not exerted any threats on the plaintiffs. In fact, on the evidence, there appears to be some discussions between the plaintiffs and defendant with a view settling the case between the parties, although nothing concrete has been put before the Court on that suggestion yet. But the evidence of that was the return of the outboard motor and canoe to the third plaintiff who is the defendant’s cousin brother, followed by the entering of a consent order on 28th November 2002 and accepted by the Court on 10th December 2002 whereby paragraph 2 of the interim order of 29th August 2002 had been agreed to be vacated.

There is now evidence on oath from the defendant that he had no intention of entering the plaintiffs’ camp for the purpose of threatening or harassing the plaintiffs and/or their employees. The Court accepts that as token of undertaking that the defendant will not go into the camp to threaten or harass the plaintiffs and their employees. I do not think it would be right and proper to bar him from going into the camp for all purposes. After all he is a landowner and in that regard he is a party to the Timber Rights Agreement although that he said he questioned the Form 1 procedure.

An injunction, like the one granted in this case, is to restrain a party from doing specific acts. In this case, it was to restrain the defendant from threatening or harassing the plaintiffs and their servants or agents. The defendant had since 22nd July 2002 not gone back to the plaintiffs’ camp for the purpose of threatening or harassing the plaintiffs or their employees. He had discussions with Mr Silas Milikada a partner and shareholder in the first plaintiff with a view to resolving the disputes between the parties. The defendant further undertakes not to threaten the plaintiffs or their employees. In those circumstances, the presence of a prohibitory injunction, order would be counter productive. There is power in the Court to grant injunction even to prevent future breach of plaintiffs’ legal rights, because they fear that wrong will be done to them if the order is not made. In other words there is power to grant injunction against the defendant here for apprehended legal wrong: Redland Brides Ltd –v- Morris. The remedy is discretionary and depends on the circumstances of each case.

In the present case, I am satisfied that this is a case where the interim order granted earlier ought not to be allowed to continue.

The interim injunction order granted on 29th August 2002 must therefore be discharged, and it is hereby discharged.

The costs however must be borne by the defendant since it was by his actions these proceedings were brought.

Order: 

1.	Interim Injunction Order dated 29th August 2002 discharged.

2.	Defendant to pay plaintiffs’ costs to be taxed if not agreed.

(Sir John B. Muria)
Chief Justice