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

Toto v Samani [2006] SBHC 41; HCSI-CC 380 of 2005 (15 September 2006)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 380 of 2005

STEPHANUS TOTO

-v-

DAVID SAMANI & STEPHEN KUNI & JOHN LUSUMANI

Date of Hearing: 15th September 2006

Date of Ruling: 15th September 2006

Mr. A. Hou for the Plaintiffs
No appearance for the Defendant

RULING

ORDER

Brown, J: The decision given on the 16 August 1996 was affirmed by this court on the 6 February 2003. By summons the plaintiff Stephanus Toto comes to court seeking this courts support to effectively realise the right of ownership to Fiu Land given him as his tribal representative by the CLAC. This claim then is not one involving ownership of customary per se but rather a claim for assistance to effectuate the earlier orders of this court and the CLAC.

There has been no appearance or argument by the defendants in Court. The summons was served and earlier an appearance entered by Samani Dausabe. The defendants absence does not prevent the plaintiff now coming to seek this courts assistance. Non appearance does not prevent the court ruling effective orders.

I’m satisfied the plaintiff, as the rightful owner representing his tribe, has standing to seek an order restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff rights as customary owner.

I ascending direct that the plaintiff shall be entitled to order those unlawfully occupancy or trespassing upon Fiu Land to cease occupation and depart from that place. Where the named defendants or others claiming right by virtue of these named defendants, resist or object to the direction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be at liberty, to forth with take out a writ of possession directing the sheriff to evict these trespasses, with all necessary assistance from the RSIP to avoid a breach of the place upon execution of such writ.

When it becomes necessary to issue the writ, the plaintiff shall lodge sufficient moneys for the sheriffs costs of execution including where necessary airfares to and from East Malaita for the sheriff and his assistant and any necessary fees for the attendance of police constables.

The plaintiff shall file an affidavit detailing the circumstances giving rise to his request for the issue of any writ of possession.

The plaintiff is a liberty to direct the defendants and those others identified to leave forth with upon notice given them of this order.

The plaintiff shall have his costs of these proceedings from the defendants.

THE COURT