Seeking Clarity: The Devastating Cost of an Ongoing Injunction
Regarding High Court Civil Case 109 of 2025, our company has been under an injunction since August 4, 2025. This has brought our vital project to a complete standstill for over two months.
We did not enter into this venture lightly. We made a huge, good-faith investment:
- Massive Capital Investment in the project.
- Importing specialized machinery from China.
- Hiring experienced agriculture experts from China.
The result of this mandated inactivity is a devastating financial toll. As of today, our total damages have tragically exceeded SBD 44,222,426.
The Legal and Factual Conundrum
We are the First Defendant in this case. The other defendants include:
- Second Defendant: Samuel Kuribuana (the only surviving joint owner of the Perpetual Estates).
- Third Defendant: Serah Kuri (the Second Defendant’s daughter).
- Fourth & Fifth Defendants: The Commissioner of Lands and The Registrar of Titles.
We are the rightful lease holder, having willingly entered into a lease agreement with the sole surviving trustee and completing all the necessary registration processes with the Ministry of Lands. This established our lawful position.
The Claimant, Desmond Wilson Norua Nimepo, has no official position, title, or legal registration on the land. He claims an interest based on prescriptive rights of adverse possession and an ongoing, uncompleted agreement with the Second Defendant. It is worth noting his sworn statement references an uncompleted agreement for a plot of 50m x 50m, yet his claim is against 5 hectares of the property.
We are struggling to understand a key point: How can a settler with no registered legal interest secure an injunction against the lawful lease holder (our company) and the legal Permanent Estate (PE) holder (the sole surviving trustee)?
While we have filed our appeal with the Court of Appeal, we are realistically advised that a hearing may not be scheduled until April 2026. For a company like ours, a continuous shutdown of this duration is not a matter of profit and loss—it is a matter of corporate life and death. We simply cannot endure such an extended period without operations.
The Critical Question of Compensation
The Claimant, Mr. Desmond Nimepo, has signed an Undertaking as to Damages. This undertaking is a promise to compensate us for the losses caused by the injunction should he ultimately fail in court. However, given the colossal scale of our incurred damages, it is already certain that he would be financially unable to cover our losses.
This brings us to our most critical question, and we seek an answer from those familiar with the law in the Solomon Islands:
If an interim injunction is granted, but the party who requested it (the Claimant) is demonstrably incapable of paying the resulting damages (the SBD 44,222,426+ losses) should they lose the main case—who is left to cover our damages during the injunction period when we ultimately win?
Our purpose is not to blame the High Court’s decision; it is a fundamental appeal for clarity on the legal mechanisms that are supposed to safeguard the party wrongfully restrained when the Undertaking as to Damages cannot be met. We look forward to hearing a robust discussion on this vital point of law.