Hope everyone has had their MORNING COFFEE and had time to read, digest and understand the COA findings.
Yep we lost - Appeal allowed.
This is the decision of the court.
It says nothing about a retender.
Look at the second last point at the end.
Costs for legal fees to be paid by axiom.
What it definitely means is that the LOI and Prospecting License is invalid for axiom.
Check out page 77 - Does this mean the landowners aren't landowners?
The court denounced the landowners because they were registered in 3 days - their logic was that that process could not take 3 days to totally verify the legitimacy of the landowners.
Parcel 130-003-1 refers to the whole land (Isabel) in the prospecting license I think.
Not sure of San Jorge Island is part of the Parcel 130-003-1 or separate.
Look at this quote on the issue of the landowners and who is the rightful owners.
The Commissioner had the benefit, not shared by us, of seeing and hearing the witnesses. Despite some confusion over the parties to the option deeds and the lease agreement, we would be reluctant to interfere with his conclusion as to the credibility and reliability of such evidence. However, our decision arises from different grounds.
So no one has the rights at the moment, I think it was left open because there is not customary land owners anymore at this stage.
The board that included Elliot Cortez have been wiped of their land holding. They are not the landowners anymore.
I can't see anyway around that... Removal of the board members from the land register.
Also, "the land appellants" are who SMM is claiming the true owners to be. Axiom has to pay their court costs.
Furthermore - we have point 18 in the judgment.
They were to be persons who bore “the same status and standing in custom” as those they were replacing and who were “primary owner of Kolosori customary land”. It resolved to make these replacements - [then a list of the new appointees, including Elliot Cortez.
Second - regarding the parcel 130-004-1
The Takata application covered part of the registered land (i.e. part of Parcel 130-004-1, the subject of the Axiom lease), customary land that was part of the land in another Prospecting License issued to SMMS in July 2007 and renewed in 2010 and 2012, and other customary land. In other words, it was not co-extensive with the Kolosori land the subject of the SMMS tender bid. - point 42
This context is important in understanding the Order at the end
We have points D, E, and F
Parcel of land 130-004-1 refers to the land in the Axiom application.
So, point D it seems removes their right to the perpetual estate... which seems bizarre and I need to clarify but that is how it reads to me right now... They are rectifying (changing) the land register created under legislation regulations to remove the landowners on the Board (Robert Malo, Francis Selo, Leonard Bava, Rev Wilson Mapuru and Elliot Cortez)
Point E is simple, it releases Axiom from the 50 year lease.
Point F - it states that the land in question in the prospecting and LOI applications was, always has been and continues to be customary land. Whether or not that belongs to Robert Malo, Francis Selo, Leonard Bava, Rev Wilson Mapuru and Elliot Cortez I am still confused about. I need to find the definition of customary land within the judgment.
BUT…It is not as bad as people are making it – that’s what I think.
SMMS license was invalid too, so pretty much everything after the two events with SMM becomes invalid, it makes sense to me. The whole process was a shamble, wrong, f’d whatever you want to call it and have asked both parties to reapply.
Both AVQ and SMM knocked each other out, we have a new race.
We now all have a clean slate to start over.
We all get to reapply, not a retender, reapply which is much faster process. That must be what the ambiguous "liberty to apply" means.
As long as the so called landowners we think Axiom has are the true landowners; and
They are not disputed when they reapply for the land registration; then
The alleged application submitted by Axiom yesterday should be processed.
Then it’s a simple process thereon, from the authorised government department to process.
If axiom does not have the right owners, or they are contested at any of the application stages then I don’t know what will happen, I guess sheet will hit the fan.
What I don’t understand is it’s hard to map High Court Decision to COA decision.
Some rulings on the COA were not even discussed or disputed in the High Court.
What ever happened to abusing power, bribes of government officials, witness tampering, mail interception, and seems it’s all forgotten about. The world seems that if you have deep pockets and in high power positions, you can rape, pillage plunder, but don’t you dare park in a loading zone, you will be fined and if fine not paid, you are a criminal. There are more, questions to ask but it doesn’t matter, it is what it is. I am not worried, I’ve stated on here before I only invest what I can afford to lose. I’m very comfortable with my position.
Remember the most important things in life.
Without health you can’t obtain wealth. So stay positive, the world will keep spinning, life will go on. What will be will be.
