- CITATION & HEADNOTE
Noro v Saki [2016] SBCA 18.
Appeal from strike-out – distinction between strike-out and summary judgment – cause of action based on mistake and/or fraud – rectification of registered title – government policy to re-offer surplus land to original owners – whether policy legally enforceable not decided.
- MATERIAL FACTS
Parcel 192-008-90 was originally customary land of the Lunggasub tribe. The Government compulsorily acquired it, later registered it, and when no longer needed transferred it to the first respondents, Mr & Mrs Saki. Claimants (tribe members) sued for rectification, alleging (i) a mandatory government policy to re-offer surplus land to former owners, and (ii) that the transfer to the Sakis was procured by false representations and/or fraud. Respondents applied for (a) summary judgment and/or (b) strike-out. Keniapisia J refused summary judgment (triable issues) but struck out the statement of claim, doubting the legal enforceability of the policy and opining it did not apply to registered land. Claimants appealed only against the strike-out.
- ISSUES ON APPEAL
(1) Did the pleaded facts disclose any reasonable cause of action in mistake or fraud justifying rectification of title?
(2) Did the Judge apply the correct legal test for strike-out?
- HOLDING
Appeal allowed. The statement of claim disclosed a viable cause of action; strike-out was wrongly granted. Matter remitted to the High Court for trial.
- RATIO DECIDENDI
- On a strike-out application the Court must assume the pleaded facts are true and ask merely whether those facts, if proved, would found a legally recognised claim (per Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) followed).
- Mistake and fraud are, under the Land and Titles Act (Cap 133) and general law, independent grounds for rectification of the register.
- Because the Judge, having refused summary judgment (factual disputes), nevertheless struck out the claim, he applied an evidence-based test appropriate to summary judgment rather than the lower pleadings-based threshold for strike-out—an error of law.
- OBITER DICTA
(a) Once summary judgment is refused it will “seldom, if ever, be appropriate” to strike out the same claim.
(b) Doubt expressed (but not decided) that the government’s “offer-back” policy is inapplicable to registered land; that question should await evidence at trial.
(c) Preferred procedural sequence: determine strike-out first; only if the claim survives should summary judgment be entertained.
- LEGAL PRINCIPLES APPLIED
• Strike-out test: Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) [2001] UKHL 16; Tolitolo v Foukona [2015] SBHC 101.
• Rectification for mistake or fraud: Foukona v Lengo [2014] SBHC 64; Land and Titles Act, ss 120–122.
• Distinction between r 9.6 (strike-out) and r 10.3 (summary judgment) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004.
- IMPLICATIONS / TAKE-AWAYS
- Solomon Islands courts will not entertain a “mini-trial” on strike-out; weak but coherent claims must proceed to trial.
- Fraud or mistake, if expressly pleaded, will ordinarily withstand strike-out in land-title rectification claims.
- Practitioners should move strike-out applications before summary-judgment motions; sequential consideration avoids appellate censure.
- Government policies, even if unpublished, may be enforceable if they induce a legitimate expectation—question remains open for full hearing.