IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Faukona PJ)

Civil Case No. 191 of 2015

BETWEEN:	LESTER GEORGE AND JOHN WAYNE
		(Surviving Persons determined under Form 2 
Determination Representing the Arovo and Gae 
Landowners)							1st Claimants

AND:		DAVID HARO, LYNDEN HARRY, HAROLD MARIL, 
GRANDLYSIMEON (Representing the Arovo and Gae
 Landowners replacing the 6 deceased trustees 
determined under Form 2 Determination)				2nd Claimants

AND:		VOGE TIMBER EXPORT LIMITED				1st Defendant

AND:		SUNWAY (SI) LIMITED						2nd Defendant

AND:		HINCE HARO							3rd Defendant

Date of Hearing:	16th November 2015
Date of Decision:	10th February

Mr. P. Tegavota for 1st and 2nd Claimants
Mr. N. Laurere for the 1st Defendant

DECISION ON COSTS

Faukona PJ:	This case commenced by way of application for ex-parte orders which was filed on 15th May 2015. An amended application for ex-parte orders was filed on 22nd June 2015 with the inclusion of two names of first Claimants and four named second Claimants including the original single Claimant, Mr. Davis Haro. On 24th June 2014 the ex-parte orders were granted. Until today no inter-parte hearing was conducted and probably would not be possible forever since the claim had been discontinued on 22nd June 2016.

2.	To determine whether costs should be paid to the Defendants. I am legally prompted to read all 	the documents filed. Interestingly, I have to rehearse so as to appreciate what occurred from 	the beginning. Secondly because one of reasons is that the Defendants had incurred costs in 	defending the action and suffered loss of earnings including cost of obtaining logging licence, 	loss of provincial Business Licence for the period of injunction.

3.	In unveiling the background events, let me rehearse back to 1996. On 9th January 1996 there 	was a timber rights hearing, conducted by Marovo Area Council, in respect of the first 	Defendants application which concern arovo and gae Customary Lands.

4.	In its determination the Counsel had identified 8 grantors as persons who represent all the 	persons, lawfully entitled to grant timber rights. The determination was exhibited in Form II 	dated 10th January 1996.

5.	After the determination a standard logging agreement was executed by the grantors and the 	first Defendant. What appears fizzy is that only four (4) out of the eight (8) grantors  identified 	by the Marovo Area Council to grant timber rights signed the agreement. The rest of the 	signatures were about fifty one (51) as trustees and representatives. The question I must 	pause, where 	are the other four grantors? Why should they not sign the standard logging 	agreement? After the agreement had been signed a feeling license No. TIM 2/84 was 	issued to the first Defendant to carry out felling and extraction of logs from arovo and gae 	customary lands.

6.	What transpired eventually was that the standard logging agreement was not properly 	executed. Eight (8) who were identified us grantors should sign and no one else. Where only 	four (4) signed with fifty one (51) persons unidentified, render the standard logging agreement 	defective, and of course will legally affect the renewal of the felling licence later. I am not 	determining the validity of the felling licence but I am gathering evidence whether financial loss 	suffered by the Defendants in acquiring the licence and whether actual logging operations were 	done through full compliance with the provisions of the Forest Resources and Timber Utilisation 	Act. In this case I do not think so. Any renewal of the same licence in the future does not 	change the validity of the licence.

7.	The second issues is that, after the ex-parte orders were granted, there was no inter-party 	hearing 	conducted until the claim was discontinued. I noted the defence was filed 23 days after	 the claim was filed. Immediately after that an inter-party hearing should be called for.  Instead 	Counsels were engaged in filing application for joinder (10th September 2015) and filing 	application to determine preliminary issues (26th August 2015). The first and for most 	requirement to pursue inter-party hearing was never considered as priority.

8.	If the particular judge had mismanaged the file and perhaps unable to or had just slip of his 	mind the urgent need to conduct an inter-party hearing after that the defence was filed, the		 counsels must take responsibility to assist and reminded the Judge of the importance of 	conducting an inter-party hearing after the defence was filed.

9.	I anticipate the Counsel for the Defendants to respond instantaneously and pursue an inter-	parte hearing because his clients were restraint by the ex-parte orders. Having filed the 	defence he should, as the next step, suggest a date for inter-parte hearing. The Counsel for the 	Claimants can sit back comfortably and watch from a distance and counted himself as having 	upper 	hand. Nevertheless neither Counsel is of any assistance to the court. The process 	which ought to have been done was never done until an intervening factor had barred the inter-	parte process which now becomes redundant. In my assessment the counsel for the 	Defendants should accept failure for not being conscious enough to the changing	circumstances.

10.	I noted the issue of land ownership and authorized representative was raised. However, that 	plays a minor role. What transpired as a true traditional issue is about leadership, who should 	be the leader. That issue cannot be resolved by this court, there are avenues readily available 	to invoke their powers, and hence this court cannot entertain such.

11.	Another issue is in relation to the formation and establishment of the first Defendant as a local 	incorporated company. The First Defendant was incorporated on 23rd May 1995. The Directors 	were Lawrence Harry, Lester George, Herold Timothy, Stenner Peter, Raene Akuila, David 	Haro, Edrick Mark, Bejili Edi and John Wayne. Three of the Directors namely Lawrence Harry, 	Lester George and John Wayne were among the eight (8) grantors identified by the Area 	Council on 9th January 1996 as persons having right to grant timber rights. Initially it appeared 	that the First Defendant was a company owned by the landowners who owned arovo and gae 	customary Lands by way of grantors as identified.

12.	On 20th November 2013 the First Defendant was re-registered under the new Company Act. 	The Directors were Clayton Haro, Watson Haro and Wince Haro. The three Directors were also 	became the three Shareholders. It was during the time of the change of Directorship and 	Shareholders that the initial application for ex-parte orders was filed on 15th May 2015.

13.	With the abrupt change of Directorship and Shareholders, the Claimants felt that there was 	some kind of deceptive actions went on. As a result a criminal report was lodged with CID 	Police on 12th July 2016.

14.	From Exhibit WH-10, attached to Watson Haro’s sworn statement file d17th August 2016, the 	re-registration of First Defendant on 20th November 2013 was removed on 1st January 2016, 	the reason being failure to file 2015 annual report. The removal of the Directors and 	Shareholders had paved a way for new Directors and Shareholders to be appointed. According 	to the Company Extract the new Directors are: Calton Grandly, Douglas Haro, Gradly Simone, 	Harold Mark, John Wayne, Lami Simeon, Lester George, Lynder Hare and Ratu Ropiti. The 	Shareholders are, Calton Grandly, Davis Haro, Elvis Haro and Lyden Haro.

15.	With final changes in place Mr. Tegavota submits that those Directors and Shareholders are 	supporters of the Claimants case. Therefore, it would be impossible to sue the ir own company 	or themselves. Hence, the decision taken was to discontinue the proceedings against the First 	Defendant.

16.	Mr. Laurere in submissions states that the Claimant was not genuine in filing this proceeding. 	He points out there were exchange of civil litigations between two major groups in the tribe and 	raises the issue of representative capacity. He further points out that the Claimants were 	manipulating the Company House.

17.	This case was filed against the Defendants after the Directorship and Shareholder of the First 	Defendant was changed and new persons were appointed in place, those persons are Mr. 	Laurere’s client. The change reveals the original Directors were kicked out. Somehow two of 	the original Directors returned with others and were registered as Director on 1st January 2016, 	and a former Director Mr. Davis Haro was reinstated as one of the four shareholders.

18.	In reality, who actually is manipulating the Company House? Was it Mr. Tegavota’s clients? I 	do not think so. In fact evidence reveal that some of the original Directors and Shareholders 	were finally reinstated after being kicked out because of some actions by Mr. Laurere’s Clients. 	To have the original Directors and a Shareholder of first Defendant reinstated was the original 	choice of the landowners, there is no discrepancy, and manipulation noted had been done by 	the Claimants. 

19.	I noted there was an in-house fighting between the Claimants and others of their relatives. The 	issue of landownership and leadership often dominate their arguments. However they are not 	issues this court has jurisdiction to entertain. At times they translate such issues in 	association to certain dispute to involve the jurisdiction of the High Court. Sometimes they 	succeed and the High Court has to bow in as a legal obligation.

20.	One of such dispute was the initiation of this case to challenge why the Directorship and 	Shareholders of the first Defendant was changed. I think this case was filed with a purpose. 	Once some of the Directorship and Shareholders returned back to their original position, the	 Claimants then discontinued the case. I see there is genuineness in filing this case.

21.	With my reasons outline in this decision I hereby dismiss the application for costs with costs.

ORDERS

1.	Application for costs dismissed.

2.	Costs of this application to be paid by the First Defendant under the previous Directorships and Shareholders led by Mr. Wince Haro to the Claimants.

THE COURT