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

Raeriara v Tohutarau Timber Holdings [2013] SBHC 116; HCSI-CC 156 of 2011 (15 August 2013)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 156 of 2011

BETWEEN:

NELSON RAERIARA, BABIANO TAURORO,
BENJAMIN HAOMAE, JOE PASIHUARA,
VINCENT RAUSI AND OTHERS
(Wairura Tribal Land group)
Claimants

AND:

TOHUTARAU TIMBER HOLDINGS
First Defendant

AND:

SAMLIMSAN (SI) LTD
Second Defendant

AND:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Forest
Resources)
Third Defendant

Date of Ruling: 15 August 2013

Mr. Keniapisia for the Claimants
Mr. Rose for the First and Second Defendants
Mr. Kii for the Third Defendant

RULING

1. This is a conference under rule 15.3.18 of the Rules[1], in relation to the Claimant's Amended Claim – Category A (rule 2.2) of the Rules filed on 2 June 2011. The Claimants seek: 1. Compensation/damages for trespass and conversation of Mercantile trees felled and exported from Wairura Land, in respect of 3 shipments made, to be assessed by the Ministry of Forestry/or the court; 2. Compensation/damages for irreparable environmental destruction caused on Wairura Land, to be assessed by the Ministry of Forestry and/or the Court; 3. An order that the "Standard Logging Agreement" (Form iv) signed between the Licensee (1st Defendant and Nelson Raeiara, Babiano Tauroro and Benjamin Haomae on 30 January 2008, at Nariaoa Village, Malaita Province is invalid, because the signatures of the 3 named land trustee were forged; 4. Additionally that the said Standard Logging Agreement be declared invalid because the other trustees, Mr. Joe Pasirihu did not sign with the other 3 trustees named above; 5. An order that the Logging operation by the 1st and 2nd Defendants on Wairura Land was invalid and/or illegal because the 4 trustees of Wairura land did not give their prior written consent for the 1st Defendant to assign/grant their timber rights to the 2nd Defendant to carryout logging operations on their land, as required under Regulation 39 of the Standard Logging Agreement (Form IV); 6. If the orders sought in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 above are answered in the affirmative, to declare that the 1st and 2nd Defendants entry into Wairura Land for purpose of logging in 2011, was illegal and is tantamount to trespass to land; 7. An order that the Licence granted to Tohutarau timber holdings on 19 August 2009 be declared invalid for breach of condition number 5 of the License – for the Licensee did not execute any approved timber rights agreement to carry out logging on Wairura Land; 8. Further and other orders deemed fit by the Court and Costs and Interest.
   
2. There are agreed facts on this claim. Likewise, there are agreed issues as well. They are enumerated in the document filed by counsel for the Claimants on 13 March 2013. The issues will be determined after the hearing and arguments are made at the trial.
   
3. What is to be done by the Court at this stage of the proceeding is to consider whether the Claimant has satisfied it of the matters under rule 15.3.18 of the Rules[2]. Under this rule the court will not hear the claim unless it is satisfied that:
   
   • (a) The Claimant has an arguable case; and
   • (b) The Claimant is directly affected by the subject matter of the Claim; and
   • (c) There has been no undue delay in making the Claim; and
   • (d) There is no other remedy that resolves the matter fully and directly.
     
4. It clear that the First Defendant's Licence NO. A10737 covers Wairura Customary Land owned by the Claimants. The Claimants have an arguable case regarding the validity the Timber Rights Agreement by the Claimants in respect of their land. Further, there are arguable cases in the agreed issues referred to herein. There is no doubt that the Claimants have been directly affected by this claim. The dispute regarding delay by the Claimants in filing their claim. When the Claimants were certain that their land was included in the Defendant's Logging Licence, they made attempts to prevent the First and Second Defendants entering their land in late 2010 and early 2011. They filed their claim on 28 April 2011. In the view of court, there is no undue delay on the part of the Claimants. And that there is no other remedy that can resolve this matter directly.
   
5. In the circumstances, this matter is according set for mention in court at 9.30am on 29 August 2013.
   

THE COURT

^[1] The Solomon Islands (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (“the rules”) courts
^[2] The Solomon Islands (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (“the rules”) courts.