Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Tahiapa v Taoria [2024] SBHC 154; HCSI-CC 40 of 2020 (6 November 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 40 of 2020

BETWEEN

JOHN TAHIAPA AND ANTHORNEY HA’AWARU
Claimant

AND:

JOY TAORIA
First Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(in right of the Commissioner of Lands and Registrar of Titles)
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 23 November 2023 and 10 September 2024
Date of Decision: 6 November 2024

Mr Mark Sina for the Claimant
Mr Evan Olofia for the First Defendant
Mr Brenton Pitry for the Second Defendant

JUDGMENT

Bird PJ:

1. This is a claim for rectification of the land register pursuant to section 229 of the Land and Titles Act (cap 133) (LTA). Mr John Tahiapa and Mr Anthony Ha’awaru (Claimants) assert that they applied for allocation of land contained in PN 191-039-1142. Instead of allocating the land to them, the Commissioner of Lands have allocated it to Ms Joy Taoria (Ms Taoria). The Claimants say they have constructed a building on the land and are in actual possession. Consequently, they have an overriding interest therein.
2. The Claimants also assert that the actions of the Attorney General in registering parcel number 191-039-1142 in the name of Ms Taoria was obtained by fraud and or mistake. The land register should therefore be rectified and the land to be registered in their joint names. Ms Taoria and the Attorney General deny the assertion.

The issues

3. I have perused the amended claim of the Claimants, the defence and counter-claim of Ms Taoria with the defence of the Attorney General and Defence to counter-claim and the replies. I have perused the various sworn statements filed by parties and heard oral evidence in court. I have also perused the agreed facts and issues filed by the parties. Having perused, noted and heard the evidence together with the agreed facts and issues, I am of the view that the pertinent issues that I will need to determine in this case are the following:-
   1. Do the Claimants have an overriding interest on PN 191-039-1142 under s. 114 (g) of the LTA?
   2. Are the Claimants entitled to own the land through adverse possession?
   3. Was the registration of PN 191-039-1142 in Ms Taoria’s name obtained by fraud?,
   4. Was it obtained by mistake?; and
   5. Was there any knowledge of acts of fraud and or mistake?
4. Having said that, I have noted the filed agreed facts and issues by parties. As they see it, the agreed issues are the following:
   1. Whether the Claimants were the first to apply for the subject land now in FTE PN 191-039-1142 (Lot 2067/VII/H) at Gilbert Camp near Kobito 3 of East Honiara?
   2. Whether the Claimants application for the subject land and its follow-up letters were considered or responded to by the Second Defendants as rightly anticipated?
   3. Whether the Claimants should be given priority to acquire the subject land from the Second Defendants?
   4. Whether the three bedroom house built by the Claimants is located in FTE PN 191-039-1149 and overlapped into FTE PN 191-039-1142?
   5. Whether the grant and registration of the subject land now in FTE PN 191-039-1142 (Lot 2067/VII/H) to the First Defendant by the Second Defendants was done by fraud and or mistake?
5. I have noted the parties agreed issues as opposed to the parties pleading and evidence. I am of the considered view that the real issues to the whole dispute are those contained in paragraph 3 above. The issues agreed by parties are able to be subsumed into the main issues as stipulated. It is also noted that the issues of the parties do not even address the Claimants argument of overriding interest and adverse possession. I have therefore decided that I will deal with this case by way of addressing the issues as I see them.

The Claimants case

6. It is the case for the Claimants that an application for registration of PN 191-039-1142 was made to the Commissioner of Lands by Mr Tahiapa in 2001. No response was received. Follow up letters were made in 2008 and 2010. There was still no response.
7. In about 2010, Mr Tahiapa allegedly informed the Commissioner of Lands that he has commenced construction of a three bedroom house on the land. It is asserted that officers from that office have visited the site and informed him to continue building and developing the land.
8. In about 2015, he found out that the land was registered in the name of Ms Taoria. Even so, he was still assured by letter and various other verbal assurances from the office that the land will be registered in his name. The three bedroom house that he constructed is complete. He has received rental benefits from letting it out.
9. The Claimants through Mr Tahiapa says that the transfer of the subject land to Ms Taoria was obtained by way of fraudulent and dishonest dealings. The fraudulent dealings were so made between herself and Agnes. He said that Agnes was an officer of the Commissioner of Lands in Honiara. Ms Agnes has used her position as a lands officer to allow Ms Taoria to obtain title.
10. The allegations by the Claimants in this instant is that Ms Taoria had colluded with her sister Agnes who was an employee at the Ministry of Lands then, to have title of the subject land registered in her name. They assert that the said Agnes knew of their application for registration of the land. There was no determination on their application. She was alleged to have displaced their file. They also allege that she and other officers from their office had caused subdivision of the land. That subdivision had led to the creation and registration of the land in Ms Taoria’s favour. They also say that Ms Taoria has applied for land at Lau Valley. It was a mistake that she was granted land at Kombito.
11. Their application for the land was lodged first in time. In his sworn statement, Mr Tahiapa said that the then Commissioner of Lands, Mr Naoapu told him of his disagreements and suspicious dealings that resulted in the registration of the land in Ms Taoria’s name.
12. They also say that Ms Taoria knew or ought to have known that they have occupied and developed the land before her registration as owner. They have been in actual occupation but she continued to pursue registration in her name. They have built a house on the land.
13. The Claimants also say that the said transfer was done by the Commissioner of Lands by mistake. The alleged mistake pleaded was their act of neglect in failing to deal with their application which was lodged first in time. There was no response to the application even though follow up letters were sent.
14. Having received no response from the Commissioner of Lands in respect of their application, he entered the land and constructed a building therein in about 2010. The house constructed is a 3 bedroom building. He was able to connect service power line to it with a letter from the Commissioner of Lands dated 3 February 2014. That letter has caused to confirm that the Fixed Term Estate in PN 191-039-1142 has been registered to Mr Tahiapa and Mr Ha’awari. It also state that the process of registration is currently in progress and the initial land fees were fully paid.
15. The Claimants also say that another letter dated 3 February 2016 was written by the former Commissioner of Lands, Mr Naoapu to the Director, Government Housing Division. That letter also confirmed PN 191-039-1142 was allocated to Mr Ha’awaru. The land was in the process of being registered in his name.
16. It is therefore the Claimants case that with full knowledge that they have developed and constructed a building on the subject land, the Commissioner of Lands has caused to register it in Ms Taoria’s name. The letters written by them confirming that registration of the land in their names was in progress was never facilitated. The land is still registered in Ms Taoria’s name.
17. The Claimants also say that they have been in actual possession of the land in PN 191-039-1142 since on or about 2000. They have developed it since 2010 and constructed a 3 bedroom house therein. Upon the above basis, they have an overriding interest in the land. The Claimants are seeking relief of rectification of the register and other consequential orders thereof.

Ms Taoria’s argument

18. Ms Taoria denies the allegation of facts against her. She made proper application to the Commissioner of Lands to acquire an alternative site in 2007.She received an allocation letter from the Commissioner dated 26 March 2008. The land identified in that letter was block 7 at Kombito 3 residential subdivision.
19. On 15 July 2008, she was given an offer letter by the Commissioner. She went with the surveyors to demarcate the boundaries of the land. The land was vacant and full of bushes. They cleared it for survey. It was then used as a playing ground for people living around there. She frequently goes on site to check.
20. It was later in 2009 that she noticed someone constructing a building therein. In about 2010, she went to the site again and saw Mr Tahiapa in the house. She told him that she has been allocated the land by the Commissioner. Mr Tahiapa told her that he built the house and is living in it.
21. Form thereon, Ms Taoria tried to get clarification from the office of the Commissioner. She was unable to get clarification. She finally saw the Commissioner after about 4 years. She was informed that her offer for the land has not been revoked. She was advised to fulfil all the requirements stipulated in the offer.
22. Upon that advice, she paid all required fees on 18 October 2010. She was granted a Fixed Term Estate over PN 191-039-1142 on 26 October 2015. Since then, she was unable to develop the land because Mr Tahiapa and Mr Ha’awaru were living on the land.
23. Ms Taoria denies that she acquired the land through one Agnes as alleged. In cross-examination, she told the court that Agnes is her relative. The former Commissioner of Lands, Mr Naoapu is also her relative. They are all of the same village. She did not get any assistance from any of them to be allocated with the land. What she did was to follow the correct process of acquiring the subject land. The allegations of fraud against her are without basis and not supported by actual evidence.
24. It is also her case that Mr Tahiapa has approached her several times requesting her to transfer title of the land to him. Mr Tahiapa also went to her father’s house to try and convince her to have the land transferred. She refused his request. She wants to move into the land and develop it. Apart from other reliefs, she seeks an order to evict both Mr Tahiapa and Mr Ha’awaru from her land.

The position of the Attorney General

25. The Attorney General has filed their defence to the Claimants claim. They say that the Claimants are mistaken as to the actual boundaries for the offer they received on Lot 2066/VII/H as having the same boundaries as Lot 2067/VII/H.
26. They say that Ms Taoria received an offer to her application on Lot 2067/VII/H on 15 July 2008. The Claimants received an offer from the Commissioner of Lands in respect of Lot 2066/VII/H on 12 December 2016. It is not correct to say that Lot 2066/VII/H is the same as PN 191-039-1142. In effect Lot 2066/VII/H is the land comprised in PN 191-039-1149.
27. Having fulfilled the requirements of the offer, title of Lot 2067/VII/H which is PN 191-039-1142, was registered in Ms Taoria’s name on 11 November 2015. The Claimants on the other hand also fulfilled all the requirements of their offer and title of Lot 2066/VII/H which is PN 191-039-1149, was registered in the name of Mr Ha’awaru on 26 April 2017. That registration was in compliance with Mr Tahiapa’s request by letter dated 12 December 2016.
28. The Attorney General also say that the construction of the building in PN 191-039-1142 by the Claimants is unlawful. They never received any approval, offer and Grant from the Commissioner of Lands for such development to have occurred. They also deny all the allegations of fraud and or mistake on their part. Their duty is to undertake their role in a competent and professional manner. They did just that with regard to the applications of both the Claimants and Ms Taoria. They have discharged their duty professionally and diligently. They therefore deny that the Claimants are entitled to any of the reliefs sought.

Discussion- Issue i

29. I have discussed the arguments by the Claimants, Ms Taoria and the Attorney General above. The Claimants say that they are and have been in actual occupation of the land. They therefore have an overriding interest therein under s. 114 (g) of the LTA. The other relief sought is for rectification of the land register under section 299 (1) of the Act. They also seek consequential orders. They filed an amended claim and supporting sworn statements of Mr Tahiapa. They also relied on the sworn statements of Mr Nelson Naoapu and Mr Rowlet Wanega. The witnesses were cross-examined in court.
30. On the issue under s.114 (g) of LTA, the Claimants asserted right is that they are in actual occupation of the subject land. They applied for the subject land first in time. It was given to them by one Mr David Dausabea. They have paid substantial amounts of money for the land. They made gardens therein since 2000. In 2010, they built a three bedroom house. Since then, they have been living in that house. They are also benefitting by way of rental income from the Solomon Islands Government.
31. Ms Taoria on the other hand said when she was informed of the allocation of the land by the Commissioner in 2008, she accompanied surveyors to demarcate the boundaries of the land. It was then vacant and unoccupied.
32. It was about the end of 2009, when she visited the land that she noticed someone was starting to carry out developments. She enquired through her relatives and could not get information. In early 2010 when she next went on site, she noticed someone had built a house therein. She saw Mr Tahiapa and told him that she has received an offer from the Commissioner for allocation of the land. She was told he owned the house and is living there. Since then, there had been several meetings and discussions between them. There has been no resolutions.
33. The Attorney General says that the Claimants have been mistaken as to the boundaries of the land they applied for to that of PN 191-039-1142. The actual boundaries of the land described in their application and which was granted to them by the Commissioner was PN 191-039-1149.
34. They further say that the Claimants were not authorised to enter and construct the three bedroom house in PN 191-039-1142. Their entry and development on the land is unlawful. They are not entitled to the relief under s. 114 (g) of the LTA.
35. Putting all the above discussions into perspective, it is important to note and take into account how the Claimants initially entered the land. They asserted they lodged an application which was not responded to. Even follow up letter were not responded to. They took it upon themselves to enter the land they thought was the land they applied for without lawful authorisation. It must be noted here that only the Commissioner of Lands has the power to grant a Fixed Term Estate (FTE) to any person under s. 132 of the Act.
36. What is also essential to note is that the FTE in PN 191-039-1149 was granted by the Commissioner under s. 132 of the Act to Mr Ha’awaru and which was authorised by Mr Tahaipa. The land comprised in PN 191-039-1149 is the land that they have applied for. My view can be confirmed by letter from Mr Naoapu dated 6 March 2017. That letter was in reference to the land in Lot 2066/VII/H which is now known as PN 191-039-1149. Paragraph 21 of the Claimants statement of case on page 4 of the court book also confirms that fact.

Issue ii

37. At this stage, I intend to discuss the issue of adverse possession as this is related to the first issue. Part XXIII of the LTA is relevant and I will refer to S.224 therein. Section 224 stipulates that the right is exercisable and can be enforced against the registered title holder if it is proved that the person has had or has enjoyed peaceful, overt and uninterrupted adverse possession of the land for a period of twelve years.
38. On the issue of twelve years, the Claimants asserted they alleged to have commenced working on the land since 2000. They also lodged their application for the land in around the same year. No copy of the letter was produced in court. They built a house in 2010. This proceeding was filed in 2020. From the year 2000 to 2020 is a period of 20 years. From 2010 to 2020 is a period of 10 years.
39. In 2008, Ms Taoria entered the land with surveyors. The land was vacant and full of bushes. They cleared the land for the survey. The land was used as a play ground for surrounding villages thereafter.
40. She noticed commencement of work on the land in late 2009. In 2010, she saw Mr Tahiapa in the house that he built on the land. She told him, the Commissioner has allocated the land to her. Meetings and discussions ensued between them from thereon without the issue being resolved. She still want possession of the land.
41. The above facts shows me that the Claimants had actual occupation of the land in 2010. I do not they are entitled in law to claim actual occupation since 2000. They never lived and or occupied the land until 2010. Mr Tahiapa confirmed in evidence that he lived in the house on the land since then. I can therefore entitled to say that the Claimants were in actual occupation since then. That would be a period of ten years. S. 224 (1) is clear. Before the right can be exercised and be enforced, the Claimants must have had enjoyed peaceful, overt and uninterrupted adverse possession of the land for a period of twelve years.
42. From the totality of all the evidence adduced before me at trial, there was actual occupation of the land since 2010. That period in time has fallen short of the twelve years period stipulated under s. 224 (1) of the LTA. It is also noted from the evidence before me that the Claimants could not have enjoyed peaceful, overt and uninterrupted adverse possession from thereon to date. There have been issues surrounding their occupation of the land since then to this day.
43. Also of importance is the memorandum dated 26 November 2007 on page 126 of the court book. The memorandum confirmed that Block 3, Kombito, (the area where PN 191-039-1142 was created from) has remained undeveloped for a long period of time since late 1980s. So in 2007, there is evidence before me that the block which was surveyed has remained undeveloped. It is my view that these pieces of evidence would defeat the assertion of the Claimants under s. 114 (g) and s. 224 (1) of the LTA.
44. Also on point is the Court of Appeal case in Paza v Sivoro [2018] SBCA 2: SICOA--CAC 16 of 2017. The Court of Appeal held inter alia that before a person is entitled to claim an overriding interest under s. 114 (g) of the LTA, his occupation of the land must be lawful. He must prove that he was and is in lawful occupation. In this instant, that lawful occupation relates to consent by the registered owner to allow him to occupy.
45. Before PN 191-039-1142 was registered in Ms Taoria’s name in 2015, the Commissioner of Lands holds title. The Attorney General has confirmed in their defence, their evidence and submission that they did not give consent for the Claimants to enter and develop the land. They said the Claimants entry and development of the land was unlawful.
46. By the authority of the Paza case, I am of the view that the Claimants alleged rights under s. 114 (g) and s. 224 (1) of the LTA are misconceived. They are not entitled to lay any claim over PN 191-039-1142 under those provisions. They do not possess any overriding interest on the land. They are not entitled to claim the land through adverse possession.

Issue iii

47. Having decided the first two issues, I now wish to address the third issue. This issue question the registration process by the Commissioner of Lands and Registrar of Titles under s. 229 of the LTA. The Claimants allegation of fraud is against Ms Taoria and the Commissioner of Lands. In that regard, the Claimants must prove to my satisfaction that they have committed fraud to have title of the land registered in Ms Taoria’s name.
48. I have noted the pleadings in respect of the allegation of fraud. The pleadings are very general in nature and not sufficiently particularised. They are contained in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the statement of case on pages 4 and 5 of the court book.
49. I have also noted and perused the sworn statement of Mr Tahiapa on pages 12 and 13 of the court book. They do not particularise the allegations of fraud. Allegation 29 (a) relates the relationship between Ms Taoria and one Agnes, an officer in the office of the Commissioner. They were sisters and the registration was facilitated because of that relationship.
50. The evidence produced in support on page 12, paragraph 27 (a) is because of the relationship, they believe that Ms Taoria should have known that they have previously applied for registration of the same land. With due respect, that is not evidence but mere assumption from the Claimants. It is what they believed to have happened. In any event opinion evidence is not admissible.
51. Allegation 29 (b) relates to the Commissioner’s intention to defraud the Claimants of their legal and equitable interest in the land. The evidence in support as contained in paragraph 27 (b) on page 12 of the court book. They suspected that the Commissioner have the intention to deceive the Claimants. Like the first allegation, that again does not contain any facts. It is based on suspicion and cannot be sustained. In any event, that is opinion evidence and is inadmissible.
52. Allegation 29 (c) relates to the knowledge of the Commissioner about the Claimants application on the subject land. The evidence in support on paragraph 27 (c) on page 12 of the court book talked about the subdivision of the block in about 2007- 2008. They applied for the same land and their application was not considered.
53. The relevant evidence that I can get assistance from in respect of this allegation is the sworn statement of Mr McNeil on pages 114 to 164 of the court book and the defence of the Attorney General on pages 110 to 113 therein.
54. It is undisputed that subdivision of block 7 was facilitated in about 2007 to 2008. Both PN 191-039-1142, Lot 2067/VII/H and PN 191-039-1149, Lot 2066/VII/H were created from the same subdivision. Both applications of the Claimants and the Ms Taoria did not relate to any parcel numbers or any lot numbers. Both applications were considered and granted by the Commissioner. They received offers in respect of the said lands. The Claimants were granted FTE over PN 191-039-1149, Lot 2066/VII/H and Ms Taoria was granted FTE over PN 191-039-1142, Lot 2067/VII/H.
55. From the evidence before me, allegation 29 (c) has no basis and lacks merit. The Claimants had in their claim, their defence to counter-claim and their replies have tried to mislead the court. They asserted that their application was never considered. In actual fact, the land in PN 191-039-1149 is currently registered in their favour in the name of Mr Ha’awaru. They have miserably failed to disclose that information to the court. The court has been led to believe that they were never allocated any land at all by the Commissioner.
56. The land allocated to them was registered in the name of Mr Ha’awaru as requested by Mr Tahiapa. It has become obvious that the Claimants have misled themselves as to the boundaries of the land they applied for. They could have checked with the office of the Commissioner to properly ascertain the boundaries of the land but never did. Their mistaken view have led them to lay claim on land that they are not legally entitled to lay any claim on. They have misled themselves and have misled this court. They should have known by letter dated 3 March 2017 that the description of their land was different from PN 191-039-1142. They did not but further pursued their claim by filing this proceeding in 2020. They have also failed to disclose material facts affecting this proceeding. Their allegation is without merit.
57. In discussing allegation 29 (c) above, I can see the discussions also cover allegation (d) and (e). Allegation (f) is also covered in my discussions above. All allegations are without merit.
58. Having discussed the allegations in issue iii, I am not satisfied that the Commissioner of Lands has committed fraud in registering PN 191-039-1142 in the name of Ms Taoria. I am equally not satisfied that Ms Taoria or Agnes have colluded to facilitate the registration of the land in favour of Ms Taoria. The Commissioner of Lands have duly discharged his duties under the LTA to facilitate the registration of the respective lands to Ms Taoria and to Mr Ha’awaru for the Claimants. I hereby conclude that the registration of PN 191-039-1142 in Ms Taoria’s name was not obtained by fraud.

Issue iv

59. The allegation in respect of issue iv are contained in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the statement of case. The alleged mistake is that the Commissioner has allocated land in Kombito to Ms Taoria when her application was for land in Lau Valley.
60. The Claimants have again raised the issue of their application being made first in time. It was not considered. A subsequent application by Ms Taoria was facilitated and PN 191-039-1142 was registered in her name.
61. I must stress here that the power to allocate land is solely vested in the Commissioner of Lands. No other authority or person has power to allocate land in Solomon Islands. As discussed earlier in this judgment, subdivision of the subject land was done in about 2007 – 2008 by the Commissioner. Both applications of the Claimants and Ms Taoria received favourable responses from the Commissioner. They were both allocated land.
62. Before formal allocation was done by the Commissioner, Mr Tahiapa has entered and developed the subject land without authority. From the further sworn statement of Mr McNeil on pages 5 to 24 of the Supplementary Court Book and more so on page 15 therein, I can see that the Claimants have done most of their developments on PN 191-039-1142. There is very little development in PN 191-039-1149 which was legally allocated to them.
63. It is therefore obvious from my reading of the pleadings and evidence produced in this trial that there was no mistake occasioned by the Commissioner of Lands to facilitate registration of PN 191-039-1142 in the name of Ms Taoria.
64. What is also obvious from perusing and hearing the evidence in court is that it was the Claimants who were mistaken. From their mistaken view of the boundaries of the land they applied for, they have also led certain officers of the Commissioner of Lands to carry out their own surveys to suit their own purposes. They have also convinced them to engross letters in their favour to be used in court. They have also intended to mislead the court by hiding material facts and evidence relevant to their case.
65. With particular reference in the allocation of PN 191-039-1149 in their favour. They never disclose that information to the court in their pleadings. They continued to state that their application was never responded to and was never facilitated. It is now obvious to me that they have had a bite of the cake. They still want another bite of the same cake. That is not possible and should not be entertained by this court. In view of my discussions from paragraphs 49 to 64 above, I am not satisfied that the registration of PN 191-039-1142 in Ms Taoria’s name was obtained by mistake.

Issue v

66. In relation to issue v and in discussing issues iii and iv above, I can say that having found that I am not satisfied that the Claimants have made out their case on allegations of fraud and mistake, I decline to rule of this issue.
67. Having discussed all the issues affecting this proceeding, I am not satisfied that the Claimants have proved their case before me on the balance of probabilities. I therefore dismiss their amended claim filed on 20 July 2020 with cost.

The counter-claim of Ms Taoria

68. In her counter-claim Ms Taoria sought various reliefs including an order for vacant possession, eviction, removal of properties built on the land and consequential orders. The basis of her counter-claim are as discussed in paragraphs 18 to 24 above.
69. I have also perused and noted the counter- defence of the Claimants. Their defence is also based on their assumptions and beliefs that they hold in respect of the boundaries of the subject land.
70. I also took into account the defence and the evidence of the Attorney General which has shade much light into the whole scenario between the Claimants and Ms Taoria’s land allocations. I
71. Having discussed in detail the issues in this proceeding and having dismissed the Claimants amended claim. Without having to discuss the same issues again and having taken note of the position of the Attorney General, I am satisfied that Ms Taoria has made out her claim in her counter-claim and is entitled to the reliefs sought therein.
72. In respect of this proceeding, I make the following orders:-
    1. The Claimants claim is dismissed with cost.
    2. The counter-claim of Ms Taoria is granted.
    3. Ms Taoria is entitled to the following reliefs:
       1. The Claimants/Cross - Defendants are to deliver vacant possession of PN 191-039-1142 to Ms Taoria within 21 days from this order;
       2. An order for eviction of the Claimants/Cross – Defendants from PN 191-039-1142;
       100. An order that the Claimants/Cross – Defendants remove all houses, fixtures and personal properties from PN 191-039-1142;
       4. That the Claimants/Cross – Defendants their agents/servants/relatives or friends are restrained from entering PN 191-039-1142;
       5. An order that the rental arrangement in respect of PN 191-039-1142 to be ceased forthwith;
       6. Consequent to the above that all rental paid in respect of PN 191-039-1142 through the Public Service Rental Scheme to Mr Ha’awaru since 11 November 2015 be calculated;
       7. Assessment of that sum together with mesne profit is to be further dealt with;
       8. A penal notice is to be attached to orders (iii) (a) to (iii) (e) above;
       9. Cost is against the Claimants/Cross – Defendants.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge