IN THE HIGH COURT 
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS                     
Civil Jurisdiction 

BETWEEN:  JOHN AITOREA AND DAVID KAFAIKAO	-	Claimant

									
AND:           WANE TARIGA   					 -	1st Defendant

                      DOREEN AUGUSTINE				 -	2nd Defendant
                        
		  JOY OBED						 -	3rd Defendant

		  ANISI							- 	4th Defendant

		  GABRIEL AND RAUNALA				-	5th Defendant

		  EDDIE USI						-	6th Defendant

		  JERRY KALA						-	7th Defendant

Date of Hearing: 30 September 2016

Mr. W. Rano for claimant 

Application for possession of land 

Brown J: 

Extempore:
Having heard Mr. Rano and having read the material in support of the claim detailed by him,
I make orders in term of paragraph 1 of the claim and make an enforcement order for possession at the expiration of the notice period in paragraph 1 where the defendants are shown not to have complied with the order for possession by vacation. 

The defendant shall pay the claimants cost to be assessed agreed or taxed. 

The claimant comes to court today to seek orders in term of his application in the claim, (p. 12 of the court book). The notice of hearing by the Registrar presumes self representation by the various defendants, it is dated 3 August and names them personally without representative lawyers.

Mr. Rano inform me he has had an email (not available) from Mr. Tariga the previous lawyer for the defendants, saying he ceases to act for these defendants. No notice of cessation is on file. I cannot be satisfied that those defendant have been made aware of the hearing of the proceeding today.

A defence filed 19 August 2013
1.	R.5.11/15 – No longer available – if claimed fact – reason – no reasons
2.	as  above
3.	Boundary identified to the satisfaction of the court – see Ministry of Lands by order 19 March 2015.
4.	Not available when better right to possession shown on the claimant case – and in absence of any right of occupation pleaded in accordance with S. 114(9).

For these reasons, the defence has no basis in law or in so far as 4 [above] fact when mere assertion of right of occupation has been pleaded without showing any separate rights of the individual defendants.
Notwithstanding the non appearance of the lawyer for these defendants, since I am satisfied in the interest of justice that these proceedings should proceed today and in the absence of a viable defence, I make these orders.

__________________
BROWN J