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

Laugana v Pukuvai [2009] SBHC 45; HCSI-CC 50 of 2008 (27 May 2009)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case NO. 50 of 2008

SAVINO LAUGANA
(Representing Haubata Tribe) Claimants

V

PETER PUKUVAI, VINCENT KURILAU, CHARLES KEKU,
THOMAS BOTU AND DAMASO ROKO
(Trustees of PN-191-064-1)
First Defendants

AND:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(Representing Commissioner of Lands)
Second Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(Representing Account-General)
Third Defendant

IZUAKO, J.

Civil Case No. 50 of 2008

Date of Hearing: 8 April 2009
Date of Judgment: 27 May 2009

Mm Tagini esq for the Claimant
E. Cade esq for the Public Solicitor appears for the 2nd, 4th & 5th among the 1st set of defendants
Ms Bird for the 1st and 3rd in the 1st set of Defendant

JUDGMENT

Izuako, J: The claimant Savino Laugana of Kongulai village, West Honiara sued five persons namely Peter Pukuvai, Vincent Kurilau, Simon Mavi, Thomas Botu and Damaso Roko all of whom are trustees of a Property registered and described as PN 191-064-1 on which is located the Kongulai Water Source leased by the Solomon Islands Water Authority (SIWA). The claimant in this action joined the Commissioner of Lands and the Accountant-General.

In this suit the claimant seeks a permanent injunction restraining the trustees from receiving monthly or yearly rentals from the Commissioner for Lands and the Accountant-General in respect of the Kongulai Water Source. He also asks that the trustees account for the monies they have received as rents from the said Water Source to date. He seeks also an order to change the current trustees as constituted.

The claimant called three witnesses namely himself Savino Laugana, Onesimo Reinunu and Simplisio Longa. Their evidence is that the Haubata tribe of Guadalcanal which owns the Kongulai Water Source is made up of two sub-tribes – the Hannigoan and Toanavua. The Kongulae Water Source supplies water for use and distribution by the Solomon Islands Water Authority which for its part pays rent to the Haubata tribe. There is a yearly rent of about SBD62,000.00 and a monthly rent of between SBD19,000.00 and SBD25,000. The monies were not being shared fairly by the five trustees who became trustees in 1999. The claimant was one of the original trustees appointed for the Water Source in 1983. A new set of trustees who came in 1999 have been cheating the Hanigoana sub-tribe of the proceeds from the Water Source. When crossed-examined, it was clear that the claimant’s witnesses could not substantiate with figures, dates or documents the claims of unfair distribution. In fact they were not sure how much money was realised on the water source over a given period or how much their sub -tribes received.

Two witnesses Peter Pukuvati and Vincent Kurilai who are trustees gave evidence for the defendants/trustees. The summary of their evidence is a total denial of the claim. They believe that they, the current trustees of the Kongulae Water Source have shared the royalties and rentals received yearly and monthly fairly to the sub-tribes. They tried to explain that the sub-tribes were divided into six families each and that every month one family within one of the two sub-tribes received the monthly rental. The witnesses could however not render any proper accounts although they testified that they paid more money to the claimant then he admitted. They explained that they had stuck to a sharing formula adopted by the Haubata tribe in 2002 when payments on the water source resumed following the ethnic tensions.

It is difficult, in fact impossible to review the evidence presented to the court by the claimant. At best the claimant’s evidence was confused and unprepared considering that it ought to deal with facts and figures. I am shocked and surprised that learned counsel for claimant would bring and present a case to the court where he has not interviewed his clients properly and gathered evidence and figures to prove his case.

In my view, all the submissions made based on the laws of trusts or any other laws are totally useless here for not resting on any verifiable facts. The claimants have come to court with accusations and little or no evidence. Even though, I find the defence lacking in their inability to give an account of their trusteeship, the position of the law is that the claimants’ case shall stand or fall on its own strength. The claimant must prove his case on the balance of probabilities not rely on the weakness of the defence. I find that the claimant has not proved his case as required by law. This case is hereby struck out.

In my discretion, I hereby order that the parties bear their own costs.

Honourable Justice Nkemdilim Amelia Izuako
PUISNE JUDGE OF HIGH COURT