HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Solomon Resources Ltd v Attorney General 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	11 February 2021	
		
Parties: 	Solomon Resources Limited v Attorney General 	
		
Date of hearing: 	28 February 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	714 of 2021	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Kouhota; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
Cost against the Claimant to be taxed if not agreed.	
		
Representation: 	Etomea B for the Claimant 
B Pitry for the Defendant/ Applicant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r 15.3.17, r15.3.18, r 15.3.21
Mines and Minerals Act [cap 42], S 24 (2) and (24 (3)	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 714 of 2021

BETWEEN 

SOLOMON RESOURCES LIMITED 
Claimant 

AND

ATTORNEY GENERAL 
Defendant 

Date of Hearing: 28 February 2023
Date of Ruling: 11 February 2025 

Etomea B for the Claimant 
Pitry B for the Defendant/ Applicant 
RULING ON CLAIM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 
Kouhota PJ
This is a claim for Judicial Review by the Claimants filed on 10 December 2021, seeking the following reliefs; 
1.	Order quashing the decision of the Mines and Mineral Board dated 10th June 2021 refusing the application for extension of the Claimants prospecting licenses over PL5/16 and PL over Mbarande and 06/16 Mbalasuna on the ground of breach of natural justice.
2.	 An order for damages caused for the wrongful decision to be assessed.
3.	Any others order the Court deem fit and; 
4.	Cost
At this conference, Rule 15.3.17 required the Court consider the matters set out in Rule 15.3.18. The rule states, the Court will not hear the claim unless it is satisfied that: 
(a)	The Claimant has an arguable cases: and 
(b)	The Claimant is directly affected by the subject matter of the claim; and 
(c)	There has been no undue delay in making the claim;
(d)	And there is no other remedy that resolves the matter fully.
The Claimant is a company duly registered according to the laws of Solomon Islands and did formally obtained prospecting licence PL 05/16 over Mbarande and PL 06/16 over Mbalasuna.
The Defendant is a decision making body within the Ministry of Mines, Energy and Rural Electrification.
Statement of the Claimant case
The Claimant was issued with prospecting licence PL, 05/16 over Mbarande and PL, 06/16 over Mbalasuna on the 12th of December 2019 for a term of seventeen months from 12/12/2019 until 11/5/2021.
On the 10th March 2021, the Managing Director of the Claimant wrote a letter to the Director of Mines and Mineral Board requesting the extension of the prospecting licenses due to severe effect of COVID 19.
The Claimant received a notice from the Mines and Mineral Board on about 8th June 2021.
On 10th June 2021, Mr David Kwan, the Managing Director of the Claimant attended the meeting of the Mine and Mineral Board and made oral submission to the Board. On or about 17th June 2021, the Claimant of the Board wrote to the Claimant stating reasons for not approving the Claimants application for extension of the prospecting licenses to the Claimant on the following grounds.
1. 	Solomon Resources did not fulfil the conditions of its prospecting licence (2-) in its third schedule as well as additional condition (3)
2. 	Solomon Resources did not have technical and financial capacity to fully access the mineral resources potential of these areas.
3. 	Solomon Resources failed to make submission to the Government during the COVID-19 pandemic to bring in expatriate employees.
The Defendant Defence
The Defendant in its defence to the claim filed on 25/11/22 say that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought and say as follows;
(a)	The Claimant is not duly registered company, in fact a business entity registered under the Business Name Act on 28th September 2022.
(b)	Prior to obtaining both PLs in 2026, the Claimant was either a registered company or a registered business entity.
(c)	Both PL already expired in 2019, and Claimant sought to extend them.
(d)	The Claimant was granted approval for 17 months extension prior to both its PL commencing from 12th December 2019 to 11th May 2021. The extension period lapsed on the latter date. Which is the new expiry date for both PL.
(e)	Again the Claimant sought to extend both PLs, for time loss, due to Covid-19
(f)	However ever prior to the Covid-19, the Claimant has not actively prospecting the area. Thus the Claimant cannot use COVID-19 as an excuse for not conducting prospecting operations.
4. 	The Defendant admits paragraph 3 of the Claimant’s Statement of Case but repeats paragraph 2 a) b) c) e) f) of the Statement of Defence above.
5. 	In answer to paragraph 5 of the Claimant’s Statement of Case, the Defendant says, though the Managing Director of the Claimant was given short notice for the Mineral Mines Board meeting as alleged, Claimant was notified of the said meeting and did attend and make oral presentation to the Board.
6. 	The Defendant admits to paragraph 6 and 7 of the Claimants Statement of the Case.
7. 	In answer to paragraph 8 of the Claimant’s Statement of Case, the Defendant denies breaching the principle of natural justice and states that: 
a)	Though reasons stated in the letter of the Claimant by the Chairman of Mines and Mineral Board dated 17th June 2021 were not stated in the notice as alleged herein, that notice notified the Claimant of the matter anticipated to be discussed during the meeting.
b)	Likewise, during the meeting, the Managing Director of the Claimant was asked questions relating to the reasons stated in the letter dated 17th June 2021, and he was given the opportunity to respond to the questions that were put to him.
c)	 In any event, both PLs died a natural death upon their expiry date on 11th May 2021 and the appropriate action for the Claimant to take is to apply for renewal of both PLs pursuant to section 24 (3) of the MMA. The Claimant has not exhausted this avenue.
8. 	The Defendant denies paragraph 9 of the Claimant’s Statement of Case and states that:
a)	The decision not to extend both PLs of the Claimant is not the cause of delay in the commencement of the Claimant’s operation. It was the Claimant’s technical and financial incapability that causes the delay in the commencement of the prospecting operations.
b)	Even before the expiry date of both the Claimant’s PLs, the Claimant was unable to commence the prospecting operations.
9. 	Base on the forgoing paragraphs, the Defendants denies paragraph 10 of the Claimant’s Statement of Case.
After considering the requirement of rule 15.3.18 I am satisfied the claim had satisfied the requirement of rule 15.3.18 so the Court will proceed to determine the claim.
In deciding to determine the claim, I consider that since the Defendant had filed its defence and both the Claimant and Defendant had filed statement of their case and made submission in support of their case, the Court consider there are enough materials before the Court to proceed to determine the claim pursuant to rule 15.3.21 of the CPR 2007. Rule 15.3.21 gives the Court discretion to determine the claim or give directions and fixed a date for trial. Rule 15.3.21 states “if the court is satisfied about the matters in rule 15.3.18, the Court may determine the claim or may give direction and fix a date for the trial”
As I said earlier, since the parties have filed statements of their case and made submissions in support of their case there are sufficient materials before the Court to determine the claim rather than adjourning the matter and setting a date for trial at a later date.
I had consider the statements of each parties and their submissions and I am satisfied that the Claimant was given the opportunity be heard by attending a meeting of Mine and Mineral Board and had made oral submission to the Board. In that respect I am satisfied that the Claimant was given the opportunity to be heard hence the Claimant was not denied natural as alleged.
Counsel for the Defendant further submits that, 
a)	The Claimant is not duly registered company, in fact a business entity registered under the Business Name Act on 28th September 2022.
b)	Prior to obtaining both PL in 2026, the Claimant was neither a registered company nor a registered business entity.
c)	The Claimant was granted approval for 17 months extension to both its PL commencing from 12th December 2019 to 11th May 2021. The extension period lapsed on the later date, which is the new expiry date for both PL.
I had read the Mines and Mineral Act and did not find any provision for extension of a prospecting licence. The Act only provide for renewal of a prospecting licence under section 24 (2) and 24 (3) of the Mines and Mineral Act (Cap 42). In that respect the proper thing to do is for the Claimant to apply for renewal of its prospecting licences as there is no provision for extension. Extension and renewal are two different things. Having considered the facts of this case, the materials before the Court and submissions of counsels, I am satisfied the Claimants claim is without merit hence the claim is dismissed, I so order. Cost for the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed.
Orders 
The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
Cost against the Claimant to be taxed if not agreed.
THE COURT
Justice Emmanuel Kouhota
Puisne Judge