HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Wate v Isiola	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	6 March 2019	
		
Parties: 	Chris Wate v Jeffry Isiola, David Ahukela, Laban Honiamae and kemuel kokepaine, Commissioner of Lands	
		
Date of hearing: 	7 November 2018	
		
Court file number(s): 	CC 171 of 2016	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Faukona; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	Order that the claimant has no standing to bring this claim under Rule 3.42
That the claim must be dismissed accordingly 
Cost of the proceeding be paid  to the first Defendants by the Claimant	
		
Representation: 	Mr. D Nimepo for the Claimant
Mr. B Upwe for the First Defendant
No one for Second defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Land and Titles act, s229, Civil Procedure Rule, 3.42	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 171 of 2016

CHRIS WATE 
Claimant 
(Representing his Su’uri Community)

V

JEFFRY ISIOLA, DAVID AHUKELA, LABAN HONIMAE AND KEMUEL KOKEPAINE
First Defendant

COMMISSIONER OF LANDS 
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 7 November 2018
Date of Ruling: 6 March 2019

Mr. D Nimepo for the Claimant
Mr. B Upwe for the First Defendant
No one for Second defendant 
RULING AND DETERMINATION ON POINT OF LAW
	FAUKONA J: A claim in Category C was filed on 20th April 2016. The major relief in the claim prayed for was an order to rectify the register in respect of PN: 209-003-006 under S.229 of the Land and Titles act.
2.	The reason is such that the registration of the first Defendants names as perpetual estate title holders was done by fraud or mistake.
3.	Align with that major relief is an order to quash the registration, and remove the first Defendants’ names from the register and restore the name of the Claimant as a single title holder.
4.	The first Defendants’ defence was filed on 27th November 2017. On the face of it, the defence was filed very late, after one year and seven months.
5.	As a result, an application for default judgment was heard on 22nd November 2017. The application was dismissed for want of prosecution. In that instance the defence was accepted and allowed to proceed through.
6.	On 20th June 2018, the Counsel for the first Defendants filed this application for determination on point of law.
7.	The point of law was intended to be prosecuted on two options. One that the Claimants as a representative of Su’uri Community is not entitled in custom to represent such community. He has to fulfil Rule 3.42 which he failed, before he first filed this claim. Alternatively, the Counsel opted that the court declared the Claimant has no locus standi to bring this proceeding against the first Defendants.
8.	On the first point of law under R.3.42, required that a person representing a community, tribe, line or group, on application by any party, require that person to proof of his entitlement in custom to act as representative, before any further step in the proceeding may be taken.
9.	Since the first Defendants now file the application to question the Claimant of his entitlement in custom, to act as representative, it need not necessary for the court to exercise discretions whether to require the Claimant to show his entitlement in custom or not. However, it becomes of necessity that the Claimant must show he was authorised in custom to represent his community.
10.	In pursuit of persistent in the application of the rules, it is practicable that the Claimant must show by evidence of a minute of meeting from which the Su’uri Community had given consent or authorised him to represent their community in this particular proceeding. Or any other form acceptable in custom which denote that Su’uri Community had appointed or authorised the Claimant to act on their behalf in this proceeding.
11.	From evidence filed in this proceeding, there is nothing shown in material evidence showing that Su’uri Community had appointed or authorised the Claimant to represent them in this proceeding.
12.	The Counsel for the Claimant submits that the Claimant had previously appeared as a party in other cases which involved the first Defendants as well.
13.	I have the privilege to check other cases which the Claimant and first Defendants involved in. In CC 8/2016, the Claimant was sued with four others as business entrepreneurs. In CC 244/2015, the Claimant was sued in his capacity as an individual person and all the first Defendants were the Claimants in that case. In CC 282/2015, the Claimant was a Claimant in that case appeared as an individual.
14.	Apparently, only in this case the claimant appears to represent Su’uri Community. Apparently the previous cases, one way or another, associated with the same land now currently under spot-light. Conclusively, those previous cases did not affirm the status of the Claimant as being authorised to represent Su’uri community in the proceedings. Therefore the Claimant had failed to proof in custom, by way of evidence that he was authorised by Su’uri Community to represent them in this proceeding. I must therefore determine the point in law in favour of the first Defendants.
15.	Follow on from that determination, the claim must be dismissed accordingly.
Order:
(1) 	Order that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim under Rule 3.42.
(2) 	That the claim must be dismissed accordingly.
(3) 	Cost of this proceeding be paid to the first Defendants by the Claimant.
The Court.
REX FAUKONA
PUISNE JUDGE.