HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 160 of 2005

SETH PIRUKU 
(Representing the Duolo Clan)

-v-

THE PREMIER, for and on Behalf of 
Western Provincial Executive,
THE SECRETARY, for an on behalf of
Western Customary Land Appeal Court
OMEX LIMITED AND 
COMMISSIONER OF FORESTS

Date of Hearing: 22 August 2007
Date of Ruling: 22 August 2007

M. Tagini for the Plaintiff/Applicant
D. Tigulu for the 1st Respondent
P. Lavery for the 2nd Respondent
No appearance of the 3rd Respondent
J. Sullivan QC with K. Pitamama for the 4th Respondent 

RULING

REASONS

Brown, J:

I appreciate Mr. Tagini’s appearance as an officer of the court. It reflects his understanding of his duties to the court. I also see that he seeks an adjournment for that the lawyer for the plaintiff, Mr. Ashley it would seem, is not here. This summons by Crystal Lawyers for the plaintiff was dated 24 May 2007 and followed an earlier summons in somewhat similar form, dated 11 December 2006. Neither summons seeks orders in the nature of certiorari to quash that decision of the WCLAC given on the 18 August last year. For by that CLAC decision the appeal of Seth Piruku against the determination of the Provincial Executive Committee whereby the Executive found "representatives" of the Ozanga Lavata land able to grant timber rights, was dismissed. The named representatives then are those lawfully able to grant timber rights in accordance with the provisions of Part 3 of the Forestry Act. The applicant in the proceedings before me is the said Seth Piruku who, by virtue of the finding of the CLAC is prevented from now going behind the decision of the CLAC. (see s. 10(2) of the Forestry Act which states that no appeal shall lie).

The summons of Seth Piruku seeking injunctive orders affecting Ozanga Lavata land, the same land deal with by the WCLAC has no basis in law since the effect of s.10(2) is, [when read with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Veno v Jino given on the 12 April 2006] to effectively preclude any further court appeal, as the applicant here seeks. There is no plea for the court to act "to ensure the integrity of the statutory process" rather the applicant seeks to again traverse factual matters already decided.

The summons accordingly does not disclose any cause of action. It is struck out ex debito justitiae. The plaintiff/applicant shall pay the 1st and 4th respondendents costs. The application shall be permanently stayed.

I should further mention that Ms. Bird appeared on the last occasion. With Mr Tagini’s appearance today I am satisfied the applicant has had notice of this date for hearing of his summons. In any event, as matters stand, with the CLAC decision given 12 months ago, the summons has no basis in law and need be dismissed in all fairness to the respondents. In terms of the slip rule on the appearance of Mr. Lavery at 3:30pm (the time fixed when the case was originally set down for hearing). I also award the costs of the Premier be paid by the applicant/plaintiff.

THE COURT