Meapeli v Tufoal Timber Export Ltd [2023] SBCA 3; SICOA-CAC 18 of 2022 (28 April 2023)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL

Case name:	Meapeli v Tufoal Timber Export :Ltd
Citation:
Decision date:	28 April 2023
Nature of Jurisdiction	Appeal from Judgment of The High Court of Solomon Islands (Kouhota, J)
Court File Number(s):	18 of 2022
Parties:	Lansdale Meapeli and Dickson Melannoli v Tufoal Timber Export Limited
Hearing date(s):	21 April 2023
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Goldsbrough P Hansen; JA Wilson JA
Representation:	Kilua S for Appellant Balea S for Respondent
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
ExTempore/Reserved:	Reserved
Allowed/Dismissed:	Dismissed
Pages:	1-3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. An application has been made in this appeal to strike out the appeal. The substantive appeal still needs to be made ready for hearing. There are two grounds on which the strike-out application is based. One is that the Notice of Appeal needed to be properly served. The second is that the present named appellants lack standing to bring any appeal.
2. Service of the notice of appeal was effected within time through service on counsel for the Respondent via his High Court pigeonhole. No requirement within the Court of Appeal Rules requires personal service, so service through the means adopted can be regarded as good service.
3. In this application, counsel for the Respondent suggests that, as he did not have instructions to accept service, this service method could not be regarded as good service. Yet the same counsel appeared at a Directions hearing before the Registrar of the Court of Appeal and did not raise the service issue before her. Nor did counsel for the Respondent return the notice of appeal to counsel for the Appellants noting that he lacked instructions to accept service. If it were the case that he did not have instructions to accept service, his professional obligation was to tell counsel for the other party. Having been told, service could be effected differently.
4. Even if there may have been ineffective service when counsel for the Respondent appeared before and participated in the Directions hearing, any lingering doubts about service were cured. That part of this application is dismissed.
5. At the first instance hearing of this matter, two of the original claimants discontinued their claim. Those two claimants were Mathew Bade and John Melanoli. Mathew Bade is not an appellant, so he need not be considered, but John Melanoli is said to be represented in this appeal by Dickson Melanoli. That is incorrect, given that John Melanoli discontinued his claim against the Respondent at trial. His representative cannot enter an appeal without any suggestion that the discontinuance was improperly entered or recorded. The application to strike out concerning Dickson Melanoli is upheld.
6. John Tauto was the only remaining claimant when the matter was heard in the court below. His representative, given that he died after trial, is entitled to bring an appeal. Today, this Court is informed that Lonsdale Meapeli has applied for but has yet to be granted Letter of Administration for the late John Tauto.
7. In the circumstances, the strikeout application against him is dismissed. The substantive appeal is stayed pending the grant of letters of administration to Lonsdale Meapeli. Counsel must file within seven days from today a memorandum setting out the application details for letters of administration. When Letters are granted, if indeed they are, to Lonsdale Meapeli, counsel should also inform this Court in the same manner.
8. The appeal is listed for mention at the next sitting of this Court. This decision resolves only the question of standing to bring the appeal
9. Costs of this application are to be regarded as costs on the appeal.

Goldsbrough P
Hansen JA
Wilson JA