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

Hong Jun Zhangi v Attorney General [2025] SBHC 72; HCSI-CC 48 of 2022 (16 May 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 48 of 2022 and 51 of 2022

BETWEEN:

HONG JUN ZHANGI
Claimants/Respondent

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Lands)
First Defendant

Civil case 51 of 2022.

BETWEEN

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of land)
Claimant

AND:

HONG JUN ZHANGI
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 22 November 2024
Date of Ruling: 16 May 2025

Mr P Teddy for the Claimant/Respondent
Mrs C Bird for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

Kouhota PJ

These two matters are consolidated because they involved the same parties over the same Issues.

The Claimant in cc 48 of 2022 is Mr. Hong Jun Zhangi. In his claim, he seek the following orders;

1. An order that the reallocation of FTE in PN 191-0110176 to Solo Beautification Trust Board (Incorporated) is unlawful hence it is null and void.
2. An order that the Registration of the Title in the name of Solo Beautification Trust Board (Incorporated) as owners of FTE in PN 191-0110176, is hereby rectified by cancelling the name of Solo Enviro Beautification Trust Board (Incorporated) from the register, and registering the name of the Claimant, Hong Jun Zhang.
3. As order directing the Commissioner of Lands and the Registrar of titles to facilitate the restoration of the FTE in PN 191-0110176 in favour of Hong Jun Zhang.
4. An order in alternative for full compensation in the sum of SBD4, 630,800.00 that was deprived of and suffered by Hong Jun Zhang as result of land resumed and reallocated.
5. An order for compensation in sum of SBD1, 000,000.00 for the value of the land resumed.
6. An order for disturbance costs incurred as consequence of the land resumption and reallocation.
7. Costs
8. Any other orders the Court deems fit in the circumstances of this case.

Civil case 51 of 2022

2. In civil case number 51 of 2022, the Claimant is the Attorney General and he seeks the following reliefs:-
   • (a) An order that the Defendant trespassed into FTE PN 191-011-176 located at Rove, West of Honiara.
   • (b) An order for damages for trespass into FTE PN 191-011-176 to be assessed if not agreed;
   • (c) An order that the Defendant remove all excavations and backfilling work undertaken on FTE PN 191-011-176 after his registration as owner was cancelled on or about 16^th April 2021.
   • (d) A permanent injunction order restraining the Defendant, its agents, and or servant or otherwise from entering or occupying FTE PN 191-011-176 and form carry out any works on the said land.
   • (e) A declaration that the Caveat lodged by the Defendant against FTE PN 191-011-176 is not binding on the transfer and registration of the said land to Solo Beautification.
   • (f) Such further and other orders as the Court thinks fit.
   • (g) Costs on indemnity basis against the Defendant.
3. These documents read are:-
   1. Court Book [15/5/2024];
   2. Supplementary Court Book [22/7/24]; and
   3. Agreed Facts and Issues [2/10/24]

[2]. BACKGROUND FACTS

For purposes of clarity, it is necessary to list the events that led to these two claims in chronological order of event:

[3]. ISSUES

5. The Parties “Agreed Facts and Issues are as follows:-
   1. Whether the transfer/reallocation of FTE 191-011-176 to Solo Beautification Trust Board (Incorporated) by the Commissioner of Lands is lawful or not?
   2. Whether the Registration to Solo Beautification Trust Board (Incorporated) can be rectified under section 229 of the Lands and Titles Act?
   3. Whether Hong Jun Zhang is entitled to full Compensation in the sum of SBD 4,630,000.00 for deprivation of property or FTE 191-011-176?
   4. Whether Hong Jun Zhang is entitle for an Order of Full Compensation in the sum of SBD 1, 000,000.00 for the value of the property or FTE 191--011-176 resume and reallocated by the Commissioner of Lands?
   5. Whether Hong Jun Zhang trespassed illegally into FTE 191--011-176 after his registration as owner was cancelled on or about 16^th April 2021, thereby breaching LTA (Cap 133]?
   6. If answer is yes to question 5 then whether the Attorney General is entitle for an order for damages for trespass?
   7. Whether the Claimant has a locus standi in initiating Civil Case 48 of 2022?
   8. Whether FTE in PN 191--011-176 to Solo Enviro Beautification Trust Board?

However in their submissions counsel seemed to agree that there are five main issues for determination.

[4]. LAW

While the agreed issues filed totalled up to 8 issues, counsels in their submission seem to place emphasis only on 5 agreed issues. However, I am sure if the Court answer the 5 issues, the answer to rest of issues will just fall in place. To determine the issues the Court is obliged to consider the law relating to the issues, thus for purpose of clarity I set out the provisions of the Lands and Title Act relevant to the issues below;

Resumption.

Section 114 (c) of the Land and Title act [133] (“LTA”) provides-

“The owner of a registered interest in land shall hold such interest subject to such of the following overriding interests as may, for the time being, subsist and affect the same, without their being noted on the register....( c) rights of compulsory acquisition, resumption, entry, search and user conferred by this Act or any other written law”.

Rectification

Section 229 of the LTA provides that:-

299,-(1) Subject to subsection (2), the High Court may order rectification of the land register by directing that any registration be cancelled or amended where it is so empowered by this Act, or where it is satisfied that any registration has been obtained, made or omitted by fraud or mistake.

(2) The land register shall not be rectified so as to affect the title of an owner who is in possession and acquired the interest for valuable consideration, unless such owner had knowledge of the omission, fraud or mistake in consequence of which the rectification is sought, or caused such omission, fraud or mistake or substantially to it by his act, neglect or default.

The issue of public purpose is not raised by counsel as an issue for determination so I will not dwell on it.

The issue of resumption of Fixed Term estates had been considered and clarified by the Court of Appeal in number of cases such as in the most case of Attorney General v Zhu Mindhi COA case No.26 of 2022. In that case, the Court of Appeal based it decision on its earlier decision in the case of Anthony Chee Ming Wong v AG and Commissioner of Lands cited below.

In Anthony Chee Ming Wong v. AG and Commissioner of Lands – CAC No. 176 of 2009, the Court of Appeal said: -

“The contentions of the appellant proceed upon a fundamental misconception of the nature of the reservation. This may be most simply explained by observing that a fixed-term estate is, essentially, a kind of leasehold. The lease grants possession of the land for a term of years,
specifying the payment of rent and imposing certain limits on the uses to which the land may be put. The reservation expressly gives to the landlord – here, the Commissioner – the right to re-enter and resume possession in certain specified events, namely the intention to use the land for public purposes and subject to notice and certain limited compensation, in short, the right to bring the term to an end. When the landlord terminates the lease in accordance with the reserved power to do so, he takes nothing in the nature of an interest in land from the lessee even though it is true that the lessee loses the right to occupy and the use of the land....

I had consider the lengthy and comprehensive submissions of counsel for both parties in which both had addressed the issues for determination and the law relating to those issues. I however, consider that the answer to all the issues raised in both claims can easily be determine by looking at what the laws says. In that, respect I am of the view that the provision of the Lands and Title Act and reservation clause 3.24 relating to the issues raised in this proceeding should be the prime consideration.

Section 114 of the LTA and reservation clause 3.24 are clear, thus to answer the questions, one only need to consider section 114 LTA and other provisions of the LTA and the reservation clause in the grant instrument as they relate to the issues raised in the proceedings. Section 114 makes provisions for resumption of FTE by the Commissioner of Lands. (Cited above). The grant instrument clause 3.24 also makes reservation in favour of the grantor; in this case, the grantor is the Commissioner of Lands. Clause 3.24 of the reservation clause state as follows,

“The Grant is subject to the reservation in favour of the Grantor of the right, subject to one month’s notice being given in writing to the Grantee(s), to resume, without payment to the Grantee(s) of compensation for actual loss sustained in respect of improved land, such portions of the land comprised in the estate as may at any time be required for the construction of road or other public purposes”

The exemption clause is to be read together with a condition 10 in the First Schedule 25 as follows:-

In the event of any resumption of land included within this grant by the Grantor in the terms provided in this statement, the Grantee shall on the written request of the Grantor and within the period specified in the said written notice, do all things necessary to give effect to the resumption aforesaid.

I had considered the evidence before the Court, section 114 of the LTA and the reservation clause 3.24 in the grant instrument, and the case authority of Anthony Chee Ming Wong v. AG and Commissioner of Lands – CAC No. 176 of 2009, and I am of the view that since there is evidence that Commissioner had complied with section 114 of the Act and the reservation clause, the answer to question 1 is that, the Commissioner of Lands resumption and transfer/reallocation of FTE 191-011-176 to Solo Beautification Trust Board (Incorporated) by the Commissioner of Lands is lawful. I say this, because once the commissioner had lawfully resumed a FTE the owner of the property no longer has any right over the FTE thus the Commissioner may allocated the FTE resumed to another person. I am sure that is what happened in this case.

Since answer to issue number 1 is in the affirmative the answer to issue, number 2 must be in the negative. Likewise, since answer to issue, number 1 is in the affirmative the answers to issues number 3 and 4 a must also be in the negative. In that respect, rectification is not an issue for consideration.

With regard to issue number 5 it is appropriate to take into account section 243 of the Lands and Title Act, (Cap 133).

Section 243 (1) States “Any person who, without lawful excuse, occupies or asserts any right or privilege over any land comprised in a freehold or leasehold interest in land as defined in section 9 (1) or in an estate or lease vested in the Commissioner, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of fifty dollars”.

The evidence show that Hong Jun Zhang had carried out work on the FTE including reclamation work on the land (FTE) after the Commissioner had lawfully resumed the FTE. In that respect, Mr. Hong Jun Zhang is clearly a trespasser because he no longer has any title to the land.

I had the privilege of visiting the site and apart from some reclaiming work; there is no much development on the land. Despite the work on the land, since all these work were carried out by Mr. Hong Jun Zhang on the land when he no longer has any title to land, he carried out those work at his own risk. Thus by virtue of the reservation clause of the grant instrument and section 114 of the LTA he is not entitled to any compensation as he is a trespasser.

Having considered the facts and all the materials before the Court, the Court must dismissed the claim in civil case number 48 of 2022. The Court will grant the reliefs the Claimant in civil cc No 51 of 2022 is seeking and order damages for trespass against the Defendant, damages to be assessed if not agreed. Cost against the Defendant in cc 51 of 2022 to be taxed if not agreed.

IRA.

THE COURT
Justice Emmanuel Kouhota
Puisne Judge