IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS 

(Faukona PJ)

Civil Case No. 329 Of 2007

BETWEEN: 
KOLOMBANGARA FORESTS PRODUCTS LIMITED
Claimant 

AND:
REUBEN ALEZAMA
First Defendant

AND:
BEVERLY ALEZAMA
Second Defendant

AND:
ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
(Rep. COL)
Third Defendant

AND: 
ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
(Rep. ROT)
Fourth Defendant

Date of Hearing:  10th November 2016

Date of Ruling:    10th November 2016

Mr. A Radclffe for the Claimant 
Mr. Firigeni for the Second Defendant
Third and Fourth Defendants not taking active role

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. 

On 24th February 2011 this Court had made orders, in particular order 1, that first and second Defendants delivered up possession of Parcel No. 081-003-106 which they and their families and associates had occupied, to the Claimant. 

2.	That order was appealed against to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed the appeal.	
		
3.	The Defendants were made aware of the Court decisions because they were legally represented in both Courts.	
		
4.	Despite being aware of the decisions the first and the second Defendants and their family members continued to remain in the Claimant’s land.	
		
5.	On 27th August 2013, an application to show cause why the Defendants should not be punished for contempt of court Orders made on 24/2/11 was filed.	
		
6.	That application is now before this Court. At this very moment the second Defendant and families are still remain on the land. The first Defendant had died.	
		
7.	The excuses for not leaving is that they were deprived of the assurance by the Commissioner of Lands that PE title of the land will be transferred to them under the Deed of Trust executed in 1992, -  see Exhibit “DA1,” and even further assurance that PE will be transferred to Kolombangara Landowners Foundation in 2000, see Exhibit “DA2”. For 23 years there was nothing transpired?  	
		
8.	On 19/8/15, Ngedoana Trust Board was granted PE interest over this land, see Exhibit “DA4”. 	
		
9.	Since that had been done, there was advice received from the lawyer that Defendants are protected by law. That their tribe which now registered as Perpetual Estate interest owner had gave the rights to occupy, use and enjoy the land.	
		
10.	In regards to Government policies to return alienated lands, and pre-documented arrangement to transfer, are all issues being litigated in the previous hearing by Judge Goldsborogh. It would be non-sense to re-raise those issues now, of which a judgment had been made to that effect and orders had been made. Therefore I am not obliged to consider them again.	
		
11.	On the issue of owning a PE title and interest, it does not give the right to a PE owner to occupy, use and enjoy the land. PE owner is only entitled to receive rents.  Full right for usage, enjoyment and occupation left solely on FTE holder.  In this case the Claimant has full right as an FTE holder until FTE term lapsed.	
		
12.	It is absolutely a misconception of the law for the lawyer representing the Defendant to say that ownership of PE had granted the Defendants protection under the law. 	
		
13.	I must decide here that Defendant 2 had breached the orders of Court that she has no right to occupy and live on the land which the Claimant has FTE title.  She and her families have to move out immediately. She had breached the orders and must be punished.
Likewise Dalcie Alezama who has also breached orders for undertaking that she would ensure her parents moved out of the land immediately. She must also be punished.	
		
	Orders	
		
	1.	Defendant 2 and family to move out immediately from the land.	
			
	2.	I impose a sentence of 6 months imprisonment for Defendant 2 but suspended until 15th December 2015. If she continues to remain on the land until 15th December 2016 the suspended sentence will be activated and she will be sent to prison immediately.	
			
	3.	For Mrs Dalcie Alezama, I also impose six months imprisonment for failure to comply with order for undertaking she promises she would, but suspended until 15/12/16. If she continues to breach such undertaking she be imprisoned immediately.	
			
	4.	Cost of this application is to be paid to the Claimant.

		
		
	The Court.