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

Onika v Sevesi [2007] SBHC 90; HCSI-CC 446 of 2004 HCFJ 84 of 2007 (18 July 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 446 of 2004

JOSEPH ONIKA AND VICTORIA ONIKA

-v-

JIM SEVESI AND OTHERS

(Brown J)

Date of Hearing: 18 July 2007
Date of Judgment: 18 July 2007

A Radclyffe for the Plaintiffs
No appearance for the Defendants

Motion for judgment for possession of fixed term estate belonging to the plaintiffs.

Brown, J: On the last occasion Mr. Sevesi appeared on the 27 April as spokesman for the defendants. He was aware of today’s hearing date. A copy of the notice of hearing was sent by Mr. Radclyffe when it issued, to Mr. Sevesi C/- Honiara City Council where he works.

I’m satisfied that the matter may proceed today for that it was specially fixed for hearing and the representative spokesperson, Mr Sevesi is aware of this hearing for he was in court when the date was given.

On the 2nd March I directed mediation. That was a direction without authority under the Rules but was made in an attempt to seek resolution between the parties. It was unsuccessful for there was no prospect successful mediation in the view of the plaintiff. There really was no possibility of compromise. The Commissioner of Lands was in no position to either grant land to these squatters or compromise with the plaintiffs who held the fixed term estate.

The plaintiffs claim as owner of the land. The defendants remain without authority of the owner, the plaintiff says.

Such a mediation direction in hindsight was perhaps wishful thinking. The matter shall proceed.

(After hearing the plaintiff, Joseph Onika and taking documentary exhibits, the plaintiff having closed their case);

In so far as the Defence is concerned, neither paragraphs 1, 2, &3 raise any issue to be tried in the face of the plaintiff’s exhibit 1 evidencing their registration as owner. (They are entitled to the indefeasibility of title afforded by the Land and Title Act) There is no evidence to substantiate the counterclaim (and the plaintiff has expressly negated such counterclaim by his testimony). I am consequently satisfied on the evidence of the plaintiff and having regard to the exhibits that the pleadings in the statement of claim are made out. The plaintiff is entitled to a verdict for possession and judgment in the terms of my orders amending the claim.

THE COURT