HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Toata v Acquisition Officer	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	20 March 2019	
		
Parties: 	Suifako Toata v Acquisition Officer, BeMobile Company limited, Evan Okia, Diudi Kaluae, James Suluka and Dudley Okia	
		
Date of hearing: 	30 January 2019	
		
Court file number(s): 	CC 290 of 2018	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Keniapisia; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	Accordingly; this claim is strike out under the application to strike by 2nd and 3rd defendants filed 7/09/2018 with costs.	
		
Representation: 	Mr. S. Balea for Claimant (No Appearance)
Mr. F. Hollison First Defendant
Mr. J. Duddley for Second and Third Defendants	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Land and Titles Act, s66, Interpretation Act, s29, Civil Procedure Rule 9.75	
		
Cases cited:	Rini v Silas	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 290 of 2018

SUIFAKO TOATA
Claimant

V

ACQUISITION OFFICER 
First Defendant

BEMOBILE COMPANY LIMITED
Second Defendant

EVAN OKIA, DIUDI KALUAE, JAMES SULUKA AND DUDLEY OKIA
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 30 January 2019
Date of Ruling: 20 March 2019

Mr. S. Balea for Claimant (No Appearance)
Mr. F. Hollison First Defendant
Mr. J. Duddley for Second and Third Defendants
RULING ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT CLAIM 
1. 	Claimant is complaining about a land acquisition that was held at Bita’ama village, North Malaita, Malaita Province, in 2010 and/or 2015. Claimant alleged that he did not see the determination of the Acquisition Officer (AO), put out in the public. Claimant say he was only able to discover from the Commissioner of Lands, about the said AO’s determination around October 2017. Counsel Balea for the claimant was absent without prior notice. I directed both counsel to inform Mr. Balea by letter that he can file written submissions in answer to theirs, inside one week.  Letters to that effect are on file and were written in early February 2019; by counsel Duddley and Hollison. As of today (14/03/2019) there is no written submissions from Mr. Balea.
2. 	In the claim, claimant is not seeking any known relief, that this court has jurisdiction to entertain. Instead the 2 main reliefs sought, if granted by this court, will result in forcing the Magistrate Court to hear claimant’s appeal against the determination of the AO, even though the allowable time frame of 3 months to lodge an appeal has long gone. The 2 reliefs combined seek declaration from this court: “Whether claimant can still appeal the AO’s decision even though he is now well out of time?” If this court were to grant such relief, it would be interfering into the domain of the Magistrate Court under the relevant law. According to Rini, the Court of Appeal made it clear that, High Court cannot intervene to impose remedies in the lower courts over matters that are within the domain powers or jurisdiction of the lower courts.
3. 	Claimant may attempt to apply for leave to appeal out of time to the Magistrate Court. And may give his reasons for not meeting the time frame of 3 months period, within which to lodge an appeal. Claimant may say that the Magistrate Court’s main power is to hear appeals against the determination of the AO under Section 66 (1) of the Land and Titles Act (Cap 133) as amended. Claimant may then utilize Section 29 of the Interpretation Act (Cap 85) and argue that, the Magistrate Court also has power to grant leave – because granting leave is a power that the Magistrate Court has as a “reasonably necessary power” to enable it to dispense with its main power to hear appeals against determinations of the AO. In other words; the Magistrate Court has the main power to deal with appeals against the determinations of the AO. That power includes dealing with appeals that are made inside or outside of the 3 months period. These remedies are within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court; under the laws cited above. This court can only hear appeals against the decision of the Magistrate Court on restricted grounds under Section 66 (2) of the Land and Titles Act (Cap 133). But the court of first instance for appeals against the determination of the AO is the Magistrate Court.
4. 	On Rini’s authority; this court cannot interfere into remedies that are within the domain powers of the courts below. This court can only intervene to supervise lower courts through issuing of orders, writs or directions to ensure the lower courts are administering justice in a proper manner. Rini relevantly states:
	“However, Section 84 (1) of the Constitution gives the High Court jurisdiction to “supervise any civil or criminal proceedings before any subordinate court and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that justice is duly administered by any such court”. This does not give the High Court unlimited power to intrude on the lower court’s jurisdiction. It is sometimes described as giving the High Court an aiding supervision. Where there is evidence that the courts are not being administered in a manner which provides the proper standard of justice, it may intervene by its power to order injunctive relief”.
	“Whilst Section 77 (1) gives the High Court original jurisdiction, it does not extend to unlimited rights to impose remedies in other courts. If it is to have such power in respect of other courts, it can only be prescribed by statute. The limit on its power and the reason for any such interference is found in Section 84 (1) namely that it may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that justice is being duly administered by any such court. Section 77 goes to jurisdiction not to remedies and so it does not give the High Court power to make any orders which intrude on the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court to determine issues of customary land” (emphasis added).
5. 	In view of the aforementioned; this claim must be struck out under Rule 9.75 (a) (b) (c). For it is an abuse of court process, or frivolous and vexatious or no reasonable cause of action has been disclosed, in that, the claim is seeking reliefs/remedies that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain. Therefore the claim has no chance of success or that no tenable cause has been disclosed for the reliefs sought. Simply there is no reasonable cause of action (case is certain to fail). Simply this court lacks jurisdiction.
6. 	Accordingly; this claim is strike out under the application to strike by 2nd and 3rd defendants filed 7/09/2018 with costs.
THE COURT
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE