IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 538 of 2015

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM KWAN
Claimant

AND:

HATANGA LIMITED
First Defendants

AND:

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing:  2 June 2016	
A Radclyffe for the Claimant
B Upwei for 1st Defendant
Registrar of Titles [excused appearance]

BROWN PJ:

Extempore
REASONS 
This application by the 1st Defendant, Hatanga Ltd is to dismiss the Claimants proceeding filed on the 20 October 2015 for that “the claim is frivolous or vexations or that it discloses no reasonable cause of action and or is an abuse of the court process, in that the forfeiture process challenged by the Claimant was effected lawfully”.
The claim by William Kwan is for relief against forfeiture of the lease Parcel No. 191-023-135/3 sought by the 1st Defendant. 
By S.139 of the Lands and Titles Act, provision is made for relief against forfeiture and the High Court may grant or refuse relief and make orders as it sees fit.
Mr. Kwan is by his claim seeking relief against forfeiture of his estate as lessee pursuant to a lease relied upon by Mr. Bartlett as giving him the right to forfeiture because of non-payment of rent and consequent breach.
The matters raise serious issues to be tried for the Claimant denies that the notices given were either no notice (as required by law) or that (for whatever reason) they were not valid to afford Mr. Bartlett the right to forfeiture.

No defence has been filed; rather Mr. Upwei relies upon his application to strike. As part of that application he poses questions for the court, questions which go to the very issues that I have mentioned earlier and which are presumed by the Act;
S. 139… the Court may grant or refuse relief, as the Court, having regard to the proceedings and the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case, thinks fit and if it grants relief, may grant it on such terms as it thinks fit and may under section 229, order rectification of the land register.
I have read the statements filed by the parties in support of their claim and this application. It is clear that there are serious issues to be tried. 
I should say, while I refused to allow a statement by Mr. Bartlett annexing a valuers report on his application to strike, my directions would allow an expert’s report on the hearing when properly adduced.
The application to strike is refused. Costs shall follow the event so that the respondent to the application shall have his costs on the 3rd schedule.
Failing defence within 21 days, the Claimant may set the matter down for trial.
Upon filing a defence the matter may proceed in accordance with my usual directions.
The injunction will remain in place with the undertaking as to damages until either trial or further order.
Liberty to apply.

THE COURT