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

Kosol Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Lands [2025] SBHC 135; HCSI-CC 215 of 2018 (3 November 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 215 of 2018

BETWEEN

KOSOL CORPORATION LIMITED
Claimant

AND

COMMISSIONER OF LANDS
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 1 October 2025
Date of Decision: 3 November 2025

Mr Andrew Radclyffe for the Claimant
Mr Daniel Damilea for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

Bird PJ:

1. This is a case on notice of forfeiture and re-entry by the Commissioner of Lands over certain parcels of land. In about 2004, Kosol Corporation Limited (Claimant) purchased the Fixed-Term Estates in Parcel Numbers 191-043-114, 191-043-115, 191-043.116 and 191-043-117 (subject lands) from one Moses Kaukui for value. The Claimant became the registered owner on the 2^nd September 2004.
2. On the 16^th April 2018, the Commissioner of Lands (Defendant), issued notices before forfeiture to the Claimant. The notices were sent by post on the 17^th April 2018 and addressed to Kosal Corporation Limited.
3. On the 14^th June 2018, a notice of re-entry was issued by the Defendant. The notices were posted on the 15^th. To this day, the Claimant is still in occupation of the subject lands and challenges the validity of the notices before forfeiture.

The case for the Claimant

4. The Claimant relies upon the sworn statement of James Kim on pages 6 to 50 of the court book and his oral evidence in court. The Claimant has constructed an access road to the subject lands, has erected a fence around them and had built staff houses therein. They paid annual land rent until 2018 when the Defendant had purportedly forfeited the titles.
5. The Claimant was unable to fully develop the subject lands due to the fact that family members of the previous owner were still in occupation, developing and living on the lands. A letter of explanation addressed to the Defendant and dated 28^th May 2021 was produced as evidence in the trial, verifying the reasons.
6. The Claimant’s case is that they did not receive the notice before forfeiture posted on the 17^th April and the notice of re-entry posted on the 15^th June 2018. The name of the Claimant was also incorrectly spelt as Kosol Corporation Limited. There is no registered entity under that name.
7. An enquiry from the Solomon Islands Postal Corporation (SIPC) has confirmed that the four (4) notices before forfeiture and the four (4) notices of re-entry were not dispatched by SIPC until about July 2018. It was their fault that the various notices were not dispatched when posted. They were dispatched together in about July 2018. See page 42 of the court book.
8. All the relevant notices were collected by the Claimant on the 3^rd July 2018 as shown on page 43 of the court book. It was the Claimant’s normal routine to check their post office box on Tuesdays and Thursdays each week. None of the notices were received until the 3^rd July. It is therefore their case that the notices of forfeiture were not served on them until that date. They say that the notices before forfeiture are not valid and effective.

The Defendant’s case

9. The Defendant says that their case is simple. They say that the notices were properly sent to the Claimant and were duly served. In that regard they have complied with the requirement of service under section 252 of the Land and Titles Act (LTA). They say that they have committed no error whilst carrying out their duty in the forfeiture process and the Claimant’s claim should be dismissed.

Discussion

10. The Claimant became registered owner of the subject lands on the 2^nd September 2004. In Mr Kim’s sworn statement, he stated that the Claimant did some development on the lands. An access road and fencing were constructed. Staff houses were also built therein. Further and major developments were unable to be carried out because the previous owner’s family members were living on and also developing the lands. Negotiations to sort out the issues were ongoing between them when the subject lands were forfeited in 2018.
11. The issue that the court will need to determine in this proceeding is whether or not the notice before forfeiture was duly served on the Claimant. Service of notices is provided for under section 252 of the LTA. Subsection (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) provide inter alia that any notice may be delivered to the person personally or by registered post. On the contrary, the contents of subsection (6), provides for a mandatory requirement that the Defendant must comply with in relation to service. I set out the provision:
    • Section 252 (6) Notwithstanding anything in subsections (1) to (5)-
      • (a) It shall be the duty of any person seeking to serve the notice to do everything reasonably practicable to ensure that the contents of the notice come to the knowledge of the person affected thereby;
      • (b) Any court may in any case make an order directing the manner in which any notice is to be served or dispensed with the notice thereof.
12. In my reading of the above provision, the Defendant who is vested with the obligation to effect service of the respective notices may choose to either serve them personally on the Claimant or have them sent by registered post. However, it must be noted, that subsections (1) to (5) are made subjected to subsection (6) thereof. In that regard, it would therefore follow that it is the duty of the Defendant to serve the notices and also do everything reasonably practicable to ensure that the contents of the notices come to the Claimant’s knowledge. That is a mandatory requirement of the provision. It cannot be waived unless by court order under section 252 (6) (b) of the Act.
13. It is therefore my considered view that the Defendant’s duty does not stop on the service of the notices. The process of service can only be completed upon his compliance with subsection (6) of section 252. That subsection entails the fundamental principle of the right to be heard. The Claimant is the affected party to the whole process and he must be given an opportunity to be heard.
14. I have noted during trial that the most relevant parts of the Claimant’s evidence in court and through Mr Kim’s sworn statement were not contested by the Defendant in cross-examination. I can therefore accept them as evidence in this proceeding.
15. It is uncontested that the notices were posted on the 17^th April 2008. What is contentious is the notices were not received by the Claimant until the 3^rd July. By that time, the notice period had already lapsed on the 16^th May. They could do nothing about it except to come to this court seeking redress.
16. The letter dated 7^th August 2018 from SIPC on page 42 of the court book confirmed they were at fault. It is no fault of the Claimant. In effect, the Claimant did not just sit on its right but filed this proceeding on the 11^th July 2018 seeking redress from this court.
17. As stated above, the Defendant’s duty does not stop on actual service. It goes further than that. The Defendant is legally bound to make sure that he does everything reasonably practicable to ensure that the contents of the notice come to the Claimant’s knowledge. There is absolutely no evidence adduced by the Defendant to state that he had also done everything reasonably practicable to ensure that the contents of the notices come to the Claimant’s knowledge. That is a pre-condition that must be fulfilled by the Defendant in order to validate the forfeiture process. In the absence of that evidence, the Defendant’s argument is flawed in law.
18. Also of essence is the incorrect name used by the Defendant on the notices. The Claimant is a registered entity. It is obvious from the various FTE Register that the registered owner is the Claimant. The court has noted that the notices which were sent out by the Defendant all bore the wrong name. They were addressed to Kasol Corporation Limited. It is an unregistered entity not known in law in this country. It can therefore follow that the notices are ineffective as against the Claimant who is a registered entity and the title holder over the subject lands.
19. In light of the above discussion, I can conclude that the Claimant has made out its case against the Defendant and is entitled to the reliefs claimed. I hereby make the following orders:
    • (i) I hereby declare that the notices before forfeiture dated 16^th April 2018 were not duly served on the Claimant in accordance with section 252 (1) to (5) as read with subsection (6) (a) of the Land and Titles Act (Cap 133).
    • (ii) The Claimant is entitled to the relief against forfeiture in respect of Parcel Numbers 191-042-114, 191-043-115, 191-043-116 and 191-043-117.
    • (iii) Cost against the Defendant.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge