IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 390 of 2013

BETWEEN:	WILSON SANAHU					- 	Claimant
					
AND:	SMITH PUIA						- 	Defendant

Date of Hearing:	15th September 2017.		
Date of Ruling:	28th September 2017.	 

Mr. L. Kwana for the Claimant.
No Appearance for the Defendant.

KENIAPISIA; PJ: 

RULING ON AN APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Introduction

1.	Claimant is applying for Summary Judgment (SJ).   The defendant was not in Court.   From record, Smith Puia has not been actively participating in this proceeding.   There was no prior explanation for the defendant’s absence.

2.	Application for SJ is a way to bring to an early ending a proceeding without going to trial.   Early ending to proceedings are governed under Chapter 9 of the Rules.

3.	Claimant is applying for SJ on the basis of his claim filed 16/10/2013.   Claimant is saying the defendant has no real prospect of defending the claimant’s claim.   Put another way claimant is saying the defendant has no arguable defence to the claim.   Applicant had also filed supporting sworn statements (ss) to verify the facts in the claim.   The important sworn statement evidence is the Fixed Term Estate (FTE) register.   The FTE register shows that claimant is the owner of the disputed parcel herein.

The Law

4.	I first remind myself of the principles to apply, in deciding whether or not to grant SJ without trial.   The principles are in the Rules.   They include:   SJ will not be granted if there is an issue for investigation or if there are real issues for contention, then a trial is warranted to test those issues; whether the party opposing SJ has an arguable defence; or in the claimant’s perspective the defendant has no arguable defence; or in the defendant’s perspective the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding or in the claimant’s belief the defendant does not have any real prospect of defending the claimant’s claim.    To succeed in an application for SJ, the applicant’s case must be based on clear evidence or cogent evidence or strict proof of the facts pleaded in the claim or defence as the case may be.   This is why the Rules call for the applicant for SJ or the opposing party to file a ss verifying the facts in the claim or defence as the case may be.   Case law authorities have also applied these principles.   With these principles in mind, I now consider claimant’s application for SJ.

Claimant’s Claim

5.	Claimant’s claim is for possession, eviction and permanent injunction against the defendant, in relation to Parcel Number:  191-006-223 (PN 233), situated at Riffle Range, West Honiara.   Is there an arguable defence to that kind of claim?   Does the defendant’s defence has any real prospect of defending this kind of claim? 

6.	Claimant is the owner of the FTE in Parcel Number 191-006-223.  Under the Torrens System of land registration; on ownership under the Lands and Titles Act (Cap 133) as amended (“LTA”), the register is everything.   The register provides conclusive evidence of ownership.   It is a system of ownership by registration.   A person who has title to a land; as per the register, his/her title is good against the whole world (indefeasible title).

Defence

7.	The defendant filed a defence and a supporting ss.  I consider those in this application.   The defence and ss only disclosed defendant’s various failed attempts to acquire title to PN 233, since 1994.   Those attempts fell short of triggering an offer from the Commissioner of Lands (COL).   It is the COL who has discretion to allocate PN 233, this being a crown land.

Arguable defence?

8.	As to ownership of PN 233, there can be no arguable defence in this Court on the basis of the defence and ss.   Defendant could raise an arguable defence only by disclosing that an offer was made to him by the COL.   Alternatively defendant could raise an arguable defence against claimant by alleging mistake or fraud under Section 229 (1) and (2) of the LTA.   Defendant did not plead any of these allegations in his defence and or ss.

Conclusion

9.	Accordingly; this Court is satisfied that there is no issue for trial as between claimant and defendant in regards to ownership or registration of PN 233 in Wilson Sanahu’s name.   In other words, the defendant does not have a real prospect of defending the claim or that there is a real prospect of the claimant’s claim succeeding.

10.	The orders of the Court are:-

10.1.	Summary Judgment is entered for the claimant in the terms of the reliefs sought in the Category C claim filed 16/19/2013.

10.2.	Cost to the claimant.

10.3.	Damages to be separately assessed. 

THE COURT

------------------------------
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE