HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 195 of 2006

HAROLD RUNIMETU, WARREN RUNIMETU, METURICK,
JERRICK RUNIMETU AND CLIVE RUNIMETU
(Representing themselves and their tribe)

–v-

SILVANIA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BAREKE COMMUNITY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, DR. A SOLOMON REMASE SOLOMON, WILLIAM PELE, NICKSON DNEI, HENRY GHUGHE, HATRIC GHUGHE AND COMMISSIONER OF FOREST

Date of Hearing: 1st June 2006
Date of Ruling: 1st June 2006

Mr. M. Tagini for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff/ applicants.

RULING and ORDERS

AN EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION TO PREVENT CONTINUING LOGGING

Brown, J: The 1st applicant is, by virtue of the Form 2 (which he annexes to his affidavit) a person 'lawfully able and entitled to grant timber right' in relation to customary land, including Logu land described it would seem, in the map 'showing the area bounded in red and on the attached map' with the Form although no map was there. In his affidavit he says, at paragraph 2 he granted timber rights.

The 2nd plaintiffs are, Mr. Tagini (who represents the applicants) says, the rightful owners of this particular land, Logu and he relies on a finding of the Marovo Council of Chiefs given on the 15 February 2006 at Seghe.

The order was

'(a)	Kaukomo and Loju customary lands was own(sic) by Masele.

(b)

(c)

And later described the contesting parties as 'all decendants of Chief Tarkuta, the Council further found:-

'the powers given by Chief Ngavele to Chief Masele to look after the rights and customary land ownership and to Chief Ghimu over the powers to look after the tribe.

The Council – therefore ask the two parties to go back their homes and sort out their differences and to discuss and agree, what would all like to do to develop the Loju customary land'.

I presume then that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs claim as beneficiaries of the rights traceable back to Chief Tarekutu although there is nothing in the material filed to make that clear. But I am not satisfied that exclusive right to interfere with the logging licence resides in either the 1st or 2nd plaintiff when so many other persons were named in the Form 2 as entitled to grant timber rights over these various parcels of customary land. In fact the 1st plaintiff admits to receiving moneys and signing documents relating to the license, documents which were given him by Dr. A. Solomon and Remasi Solomon; while he says he didn’t know what he was signing, the fact is he was the representative and must be held responsible and accountable for his actions. The presumption is that the moneys relate to benefits, whether royalties or otherwise.

I am consequently not satisfied that the logging should be interrupted when the argument is, as Mr. Tagini says, over the distribution of royalties. This argument is personal to the parties representing the landowners, not the Commissioner of Forests for instance. I refuse to order the restraint of what appears to be a valid logging license granted by these plaintiffs but rather direct the summons to proceed in accordance with the rules and be served on all parties.

The plaintiffs have offered no undertaking as to damages. Where, on its face, none of the defendants to the summons have gone out side the logging license it would be a material matter for my consideration when a real risk of commercial loss through disruption to shipping is apparent, not to balance this risk with the plaintiffs claims which may be categorized as a claim for moneys had and received by the 3rd defendants by way of royalties. It may be appropriate to seek an account but that may be argued at a later stage.

The claim then to an interim injunction is refund. The plaintiffs have not satisfied me they have a right to stop logging under the license which they appear to have lawfully granted, whether in ignorance or otherwise.

Orders.	The summons for ex parte orders is refused.

The originating summons will proceed in the usual manner in accordance with the rules. I make no order as to courts.

The Court