HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Rua v Olofia 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	21 June 2024	
		
Parties: 	Jeremy Rua v Aaron Olofia 	
		
Date of hearing: 	10 May 2024	
		
Court file number(s): 	240 of 2013	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Lawry; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. Judgment is entered in favour of Mr Rua in both the claim and the counterclaim.
2. Mr Olofia is to vacate the perpetual estate parcel number 192-016-135 within 30 days of the delivery of this judgment.
3. Mr Rua is entitled to possession of the perpetual estate parcel number 192-016-135 after 30 days from the delivery of this judgment.
4. There is an order restraining Mr Olofia and members of his family, his agents and associates from entering the perpetual estates parcel number 192-016-47 and the perpetual estate parcel number 192-016-58 from the date of delivery of this judgment and from entering the perpetual estate parcel number 192-016-135 after the expiration of 30 days from the delivery of this judgment.
5. Mr Olofia is to pay to Mr Rua damages to be assessed if not agreed.
6. Mr Olofia is to pay the costs of Mr Rua on the standard basis.	
		
Representation: 	Mr A Radclyffe for the Claimant 
Defendant in person 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Land and Titles Act S 195 (3)	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 240 of 2013

BETWEEN 

JEREMY RUA
Claimant 

AND:

AARON OLOFIA 
Defendant 

Date of Hearing: 10 May 2024
Date of Decision: 21 June 2024

Counsel
Mr A Radclyffe for the Claimant
Defendant in Person 

Lawry; PJ
JUDGMENT 
1. 	Mr Rua complains that Mr Olofia has been trespassing on his land since 2012. After moving on to the land two years after Mr Rua purchased the land, Mr Olofia erected a house and buildings and created a garden on that land. Mr Olofia refuses to leave. Mr Rua is the registered owner of the land occupied by Mr Olofia and of two nearby properties.
2. 	Although Mr Olofia acknowledges that Mr Rua is the registered owner, he claims he purchased the land from the customary owners.  He says that the sale to Mr Rua was unlawful and that he, Mr Olofia should now be registered as the owner of the land.
Issue 1
Who had authority to sell the land?
3. 	There are three parcels of land in dispute. The first is registered as perpetual estate number 192-016-47. The perpetual estate register shows that a larger block with the registration number 192-016-6 was subdivided in 2008 and allocated the mutation number 65/08. Parcel 192-016-47 is one of the subdivided blocks. The registered proprietors recorded in the perpetual estate register at the time of subdivision are shown as Gabriel Uni, Brain Uni, Florence Olofia and Olofia Fatai. The register also records that parcel 192-016-47 was transferred to Mr Rua with the presentation of the transfer document recorded as 4 March 2010.
4. 	Another of the subdivided blocks, perpetual estate number 192-016-48 was further subdivided in 2011, with the allocated mutation number being 71/11. One of the parcels from that subdivision was allocated the perpetual estate number 192-016-58. The perpetual estate register records that this parcel was transferred to Mr Rua with the presentation of the transfer document recorded as 18 May 2012. The registered proprietors of that parcel were also recorded in the perpetual estate register as Gabriel Uni, Brian Uni, Florence Olofia and Olofia Fatai. The same owners as for the 192-016-47, with the spelling of the name Brian Uni having two letters interposed.
5. 	A further parcel subdivided from perpetual estate number 192-016-48 was parcel number 192-016-59. That parcel was in turn further subdivided in 2012 and allocated the mutation number 41/12. One of the parcels subdivided from 192-016-59 was allocated the parcel number 192-016-135. The registered proprietors of 192-016-135 are shown on the perpetual estate register as Brian Uni, Florence Olofia and Olofia Fatai. The perpetual estate register records that parcel to be transferred to Mr Rua with the presentation of the transfer document recorded as 20 June 2012.
6. 	By 20 June 2012 Mr Rua was therefore the registered proprietor of 192-016-47, 192-016-58 and 192-016-135.
7. 	The Defendant does not dispute any of those facts. In paragraph 1 of the document headed Statement of Defence, the Defendant pleads that the initial registration and the eventual transfer to Mr Rua was not proper in law as the registration process provided for in section 195(3) of the Land and Titles Act was not complied with. I record that no evidence has been put forward to support that assertion.
8. 	Mr Olofia claims that he purchased land in 2012 from persons he claims held a beneficial interest in two of the three parcels, 192-016-47 and 192-016-135. He claims at paragraph 2 of his Statement of Defence that they also held a beneficial interest over parcel 192-016-68. That can be put to one side as it does not form part of the subject matter of this claim and Mr Rua is not the registered proprietor of that parcel. He moved on to the land with parcel number 192-016-135.
9. 	Mr Olofia has chosen to not give evidence. However he filed a statement sworn on 24 February 2024. Annexed to that sworn statement is a document titled ‘Agreement for Purchase of land’. The vendor of the land sold was said to be Charles Nato. There is no evidence before me that Charles Nato was an owner of any of the three parcels sold to Mr Rua before the parcels were purchased by Mr Rua. The land sold to Mr Olofia is not even referred to as registered land.  It is described ‘a marked piece of land in the Vasahoro land adjacent to the land that Mr Rudo Olofia did purchase from the same Vasahoro land on 20 July 2012’.
10. 	The document records that a part payment for that piece of Vasahoro land had been made to Mr Nato on 10 August 2012. There is no evidence before me that Mr Nato had authority to sell any land in which Mr Rua had acquired an interest. There is also no evidence before me that the land claimed to be acquired by Mr Olofia was registered land.
11. 	In the 14 years since parcel 192-016-47 was purchased by Mr Rua there appears to be no action taken by anyone claiming to be the beneficial owner of the land to challenge the right of Gabriel Uni, Brian Uni, Florence Olofia and Olofia Fatai to sell the land. Time to do so has now passed. The whole basis for the defence and counterclaim by Mr Olofia is that the former registered proprietors were not entitled to deal with the land. This assertion is based on section 195(3) of the Land and Titles Act. That section requires joint owners to produce a statutory declaration setting out details of persons beneficially interested in the land. The Registrar of Titles has power to dispense with this requirement in certain circumstances.
12. 	There has been nothing put before me to show that the persons who sold the three perpetual estates to Mr Rua had not complied with the section 195(3) requirement. In respect of parcel 192-016-47 the persons who had authority to sell the three parcels of land did not include Mr Charles Nato. Those who did have that authority were the persons named on the title. In respect of parcel 192-016-47 they were Gabriel Uni, Brain Uni, Florence Olofia and Olofia Fatai. In respect of parcel 192-016-58 they were Gabriel Uni, Brian Uni, Florence Olofia and Olofia Fatai. In respect of parcel 192-016-135 they were Brian Uni, Florence Olofia and Olofia Fatai.
Issue 2
Did Mr Olofia purchase the land?
13. 	For the same reasons as dealt with under Issue 1 there is no evidence before me that Mr Olofia purchased any of the three parcels of land. Any diligent enquiry about the land with the Registrar of Titles would have made it clear that if he wished to purchase parcel 192-016-135 or either of the other two parcels, the person he needed to enter into an arrangement with was not Mr Nato. It must be kept in mind that anyone interested in purchasing land in the vicinity must have been aware of the on-going subdivisions.
14. 	Mr Olofia may have purchased land from Mr Nato but Mr Nato could not sell that which he did not own. As set out above there is no evidence before me that Mr Olofia purchased any of the three parcels referred to in paragraph 1 of the claim.
15. 	On 11 August 2017 the Defendant filed an amended defence and counterclaim. That document adopted the defence filed on 17 September 2013 but asserted the date of the sale and purchase agreement was should have been on or about June 2012. If that is so then the agreement to purchase could not have been that annexed to the Olofia’s sworn statement as that document recorded the payment of the part payment as having been on 12 August 2012. No other evidence has been put forward concerning an earlier agreement. It also follows that time to take action to rectify any perceived mistake would begin no later than June 2012. It is inexplicable why anyone who wished to purchase land would not check the ownership of that land with the Registrar of Titles before proceeding.
Issue 3
Had the Commissioner of Lands and the Registrar of Titles made a mistake in proceeding with the registration of the parcels referred to in paragraph 7 of the Counterclaim?
16. 	At paragraph 4 of the counterclaim the Defendant lists persons he asserts had a beneficial interest in parcels 192-016-47, 192-016-48 and 192-016-135. He asserts that he paid them $100,000.00 as well as payment in kind for the land in parcel 192-016-135. The Defendant has put no evidence before me to prove this assertion. For the remainder of the counterclaim no evidence to support those allegations has been put before me.
17. 	The Defendant seeks an order for rectification. The claimed mistake in the registration is dependent on proof of a failure to comply with section 195(3) of the Land and Titles Act. This issue has already been dealt with. If there was a mistake in the registration parcel 192-016-47 or of parcels 192-016-68 or 192-016-135 as claimed, no evidence of any has been put forward. Such a claim would need to be against the Commissioner of Lands and the Registrar of Titles. Neither of them are parties to these proceedings. Even if they had been parties to this proceeding there is no evidence of a mistake by either of them. In addition parcel number 192-016-68 is not a parcel that is subject to this proceeding.
18. 	The agreement annexed to the statement sworn by the Defendant was the subject of a ruling by Faukona J on 18 March 2014. It does not assist the Defendant. It follows that Mr Olofia did not purchase any of the three parcels of land that have been transferred to Mr Rua. Mr Olofia is not entitled to the rectification sought in the counterclaim.
19. 	Mr Rua is clearly entitled to damages because of the loss of use of the land since 2012. Those damages will need to be assessed if not agreed.
Orders
1.	Judgment is entered in favour of Mr Rua in both the claim and the counterclaim.
2.	Mr Olofia is to vacate the perpetual estate parcel number 192-016-135 within 30 days of the delivery of this judgment.
3.	Mr Rua is entitled to possession of the perpetual estate parcel number 192-016-135 after 30 days from the delivery of this judgment.
4.	There is an order restraining Mr Olofia and members of his family, his agents and associates from entering the perpetual estates parcel number 192-016-47 and the perpetual estate parcel number 192-016-58 from the date of delivery of this judgment and from entering the perpetual estate parcel number 192-016-135 after the expiration of 30 days from the delivery of this judgment.
5.	Mr Olofia is to pay to Mr Rua damages to be assessed if not agreed.
6.	Mr Olofia is to pay the costs of Mr Rua on the standard basis.
By the Court
Hon. Justice Howard Lawry
Puisne Judge