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

Kiko v Kuma [2026] SBHC 22; HCSI-CC 94 of 2025 (26 February 2026)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 94 of 2025

BETWEEN:

CHIEF BODILY KIKO AND NOLAN PIAKAJI
First Claimants

AND:

UNITED CHURCH IN SOLOMON ISLANDS TRUST BOARD
Second Claimant

AND:

HON. HARRY KUMA
First Respondent

AND:

DAVID VILORO, MURRY ROTOAVA, MASURU, REV. MARSHALL SANGA, REV. JONATHAN BELIKI, A’ARON SAMA, AND SIMI VAZARA
(representing themselves and Members of purported Tambatamba Community)
Second Respondents

AND:

SOLOMON MARINE INVESTIMENT GROUP LIMITED
Third Respondent

Date of Ruling: 26 February 2026

Kaboke J for the First Claimants
Dalipanda B L for the First Respondent

RULING

Maina J:

1. There are two applications, an application for default judgment filed by the Claimants and an application to strike out the declaratory orders filed by the First Defendants.
2. The Defendants file a response to the Claim on 1^st August 2025. With the applications, the Defendant’s application to strike was filed first on 22^nd August 2025. Claimant’s application for default judgment was filed later on 2^nd September 2025.
3. These applications relate to the Claimant’s application for the declaratory orders that Tambatamba Island and surrounding adjacent reefs are part of Paqapekapeka customary land situated main land. This Tambatamba Island is also referred to as LR 138.
4. On 16^th October 2025, I directed that the two applications to be heard together and they were listed for hearings on 25^th November 2025.

Backgrounds

5. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered between the Frist and Second and Third Defendants on or about13^th March 2024.
6. The MOU was for the Third Defendant to carry out fisheries development on the Tambatamba Island without the consent of the First and Second Claimants. Up this stage, the Third Defendant has continued to develop and remain on the Island.
7. On the 31^st March 2025, the Claimants filed a Category (A) that Claim seeking Declaratory Orders that LR 138 Tambatamba Island and surrounding adjacent reefs are past and patrial of Paqapekapeka customary land bounded by Vachu river on the east and Roaloka river on the west on the coast are owned in custom by the Claimant’s Paqapekapeka tribe.
8. On or about 18^th July 2025, the Claimant’s Solicitors served the Claim to Marshall Sanga for the Second Defendants at the Defendant’s solicitor’s office.
9. On or about 31^st July 2025 at around 10.40am the Claimant’s Solicitors served the Claim to Hon Harry Kuma in his Office at the Ministry of Finance Honiara.
10. On the 1^st August 2025, the First, Second and Third Defendants filed a response and acknowledge receipt of the filed Claim Category (A) and state to file a defence within 28 days of the service.
11. On 22 August 2025, the First, Second and Third Defendants filed an application under rule 9.75 (a) (b) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CRP).
12. The Defendants seeks an order of dismissal of the claim on ground of frivolous, vexatious or no reasonable cause of action known in law or the process is an abuse of process of the court.
13. On 2 September 2025, the Claimants filed an application for Default Judgment under Rule 9.17 (a) (b) (i)(ii) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
14. For the submissions and materials with the two application, the Claimant’s counsel did not make any written submission but just made an oral submission. The defendant’s counsel made or rely on a written a submission and materials filed in the court on 15^th October 2025.
15. First, I will make a ruling on the defendant’s application to strike out the claim. It is so as if the order sought by the defendants is granted then, that should be end of the case. But if not then I will consider the Claimant’s application for Default Judgment.

The Issue

16. The issue with the Defendant’s application to strike out is:
    • Whether the Category (A) Claim filed by the Claimants seeking 7 Declaratory Orders of LR 138 or Tambatamba Island is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
17. Defendant in the application to strike out the Claimant’s stated that the Tambatamba Island is not owned by the claimant and he has not provided any evidences of customary or courts determinations on the ownership of the island.
18. The grounds in application is frivolous or vexatious or no reasonable cause of action is disclosed or the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

Rules

19. The Rule 9.75 states:
    • “9.75 If in any proceedings it appears to the court that in relation to the proceedings generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings:
    • (i) the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious; or
    • (ii) no reasonable cause of action is disclosed; or
    • (iii) the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court;
    • (iv) the court may, on the application of a party or on its own initiative, order that the proceedings be dismissed generally or in relation to that claim”.
20. In this jurisdiction, the claim of frivolous or vexatious or no reasonable cause or an abuse of the process of the court under Rules 9.75 (a) (b) (c) is settled.
21. In the case of Fera v Ologa^[1] Palmer J stated:
    • "The pleadings should be struck out only in plain and obvious cases....; the power of the court to strike out should be exercised only when the case is beyond and that it is satisfied there is no reasonable cause of action...If the statement of claim discloses some cause of action, or raise some question fit to be decided by the court, the mere fact that it is weak, and not likely to succeed, is no ground for striking out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, where the court is satisfied that some material averment has been omitted, it will not dismiss the action but give leave to the Plaintiff to amend. On the other hand, if the court is satisfied that no amendment will cure the defect it will dismiss the action."
22. This settlement is further in the cases, Tikani v Motui^[2] and Beni v Karena Heights Ltd^[3]. In the latter case. Keniapisia J explained a claim of frivolous and vexatious as “the claim lacks merit and was brought for an ulterior purpose or is devoid of all merit and cannot succeed and that no reasonable person could properly conclude that the grievance is bona-fide”.
23. It should be emphasis that the power of the court to strike out a claim is discretionary and must be exercised only where the court is satisfied with the requirements of Rules 9.75. While it is so, if the pleading is defective, leave may be given to the claimant to improve by amendment so as to disclose a cause of action^[4].

Ownership of Tambatamba Island

24. Claimant Chief Bodily Kiko claim the ownership of Tambatamba Island and relied his sworn statement with the attached judgment of the North Choiseul Native Court case no 13/75 of 11^th July 1975 and High Court of the Western Pacific – Native Land Appeal Case no. 26 of 1974 of 15^th December 1974. His sworn statement was filed in the court on 26 November 2025.
25. Claimant it is from these cases that stated or provided his ownership of the dispute island.
26. The Applicants/Defendants rely on the sworn statement of Walter Masuru filed on 21^st August 2025.
27. Witness Masuru stated that the Clamant has not provided any documentary evidences or legal instruments on the ownership Tambatamba Island and the claim is unsupported by law or facts.
28. The witness stated that the First Claimants purport to act in a representative capacity that lack the standing or provided no evidences to establish the standing either in custom or statutory evidences.
29. Witness Masuru further stated that the Tambatamba Island has no customary or courts determinations on the ownership of the island. Worse, so there is no facts or proof with statutory declaration or decision of the court on the ownership of the Island by the Claimants.
30. This witness stated that Claimant are abusing the process of the court and the Claimant’s claim should be strike out.

Analysis

31. The Claimants in response to the application rely to the sworn statement of Chief Bodily Kiko with the North Choiseul Native Court case no 13/75 of 11^th July 1975 and High Court of the Western Pacific – Native Land Appeal Case no. 26 of 1974.
32. Chief Bodily Kiko stated that he is the chief of Paqapekapeka tribe and the ownership of the Paqapekapeka land as confirmed in 1974 land cases.
33. He states the decision of the cases stated above includes the land below the high-water marks; adjacent reefs and Tambatamba Island are part of the Paqapekapeka land.
34. He refers to receiving compensation of $2,000.00 from a damage at the reef near the island. He stated that part of the Tambatamba Island was sold by a member of their tribe to traders sometime in 1900s. That part of the island was subsequently purchased and now owned by the Methodist Church, which he claimed as freehold estates under the United Church.
35. He further referred to the arrangements with Wagina people to dive bechdermers, MID for the wharf constructed at Vuranga village. With these Chief Bodily Kiko stated that the Defendants did not dispute his rights and the arrangements.
36. I noted the compensation of $2,000.00 on the damage at the reef near the island, the part of the island now owned by the Methodist Church, the arrangements with Wagina people to dive bêche-de-mer and the MID construction of a wharf at Vuranga village.
37. However, these evidences cannot consider by this court unless it went through or part of the judgment of the forum authorised by the law to deal with customary land.
38. I have read the cases which the Claimants referred to and judgments are as follows:
    • (i) With the case no 13/75, the judgment of the court relates to a land known as “Sisiqapocho. There is no mentioned of LR 138 or Tambatamba Island.
    • (ii) The Judgment of High Court of the Western Pacific – Native Land Appeal Case no. 26 of 1974 was on the Paqapekapeka land.
    • (iii) The judgment described and stated the land in issue was a large area of land laying on the north west coast Choiseul and bounded on the west side by the Vaegu River and on the east by the Roaloku River.
    • (i) The appeal was dismissed and the degree of the Appeal Case no. 26 of 1974 at clause 2 “That the above-named appellant, Rikibata and members of his line have no beneficial interest in any part of the land known as Pua Paqapekapeka situated on Choiseul and laying between Vaegu and Roaloku Rivers as more particularly shown on the sketch plan annexed hereto”.
39. With the case referred to by the Claimant, the case no 13/75 and judgment, it was not of LR 138 or Tambatamba Island but on a land known as “Sisiqapocho.
40. The Appeal Case no. 26 of 1974 was on Paqapekapeka land at the north west coast Choiseul and bounded on the west side by the Vaegu River and on the east by the Roaloku River. By this description it is at the main land and not did not concern or include the Tambatamba Island.
41. There is no evidence in the Case no. 26 of 1974 that It includes the Tambatamba Island and the surrounding the island and even the foreshore of Paqapekapeka land.
42. With what has been disclosed with that facts and evidences the claimant’s case or claim lacks merit and mysterious, brought with concealed purpose or lacking of all merit and cannot succeed in this court.
43. The Claimant’s claim or proceeding is therefore an abuse of the process of the court and Applicant application is granted and the claim is struck out.
44. The appropriate forum for such dispute of customary ownership of land is the chief’s and the local court.
45. With the ruling and grant on the application to strike out that is the end of the case or there no claim for the consideration on the application for default judgment.

ORDER OF THE COURT

1. The application is granted and the claim is struck out.
2. Matter to be appropriate forum, the chiefs and local court.
3. Costs in the cause.

THE COURT
Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge

^[1] [2004] SBHC 24; HC-CC 268 of 2003 (16 March 2004)
^[2] [2002] SBHC 10; HC-CC 029 of 2001 (18 March 2002)
^[3] [2019] SBHC 73; HCSI-CC 261 of 2019 (3 October 2019)

^[4] Kulabule v Eagon Resources Development Co (SI) Ltd [1994] SBHC 17; HC-CC 285 of 1993 (6 July 1994).