Rima Ltd v Galo [2023] SBCA 8; SICOA-CAC 34 of 2021 (28 April 2023)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL

Case name:	Rima Ltd v Galo
Citation:
Decision date:	28 April 2023
Nature of Jurisdiction	Appeal from Judgment of The High Court of Solomon Island (Faukona, J)
Court File Number(s):	34 of 2021
Parties:	Rima Limited v Dr. Glyn Galo and Attorney General
Hearing date(s):	25 April 2023
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Goldsbrough P Hansen JA Wilson JA
Representation:	Kilua S for Appellant Pitakaka M for Respondent
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:
ExTempore/Reserved:	Reserved
Allowed/Dismissed:	Dismissed
Pages:	1-3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. In the High Court, the substantive matter began as a claim for Judicial review of a Timber Felling Licence with the filing of a claim on 3 May 2021. It had been preceded by a successful ex parte application for interim relief filed on 6 April 2021, determined on 20 April 2021.
2. On 10 November 2021, a decision of the High Court was delivered concerning the continuation of interim relief granted on 20 April 2021, now on an inter partes basis. That decision considered the Customary Land Appeal Court (Western) (WCLAC) decision delivered in June 2021. That decision was favourable to the present appellants.
3. The inter partes hearing occurred on 25 June 2021, but the decision was reserved and handed down on 10 November 2021. In that decision, the earlier orders were continued to maintain the existing status quo, the judge noting that an appeal had been filed against the WCLAC decision handed down orally on 7 June 2021 and published in writing on 14 June 2021. The appeal was filed on the same day of publication.
4. There is only one ground of appeal here: that the learned judge erred in the exercise of his discretion to continue the injunction issued on 20 April 2021 until trial when there were clear grounds for the order to be discharged.
5. The WCLAC decision presently awaiting a hearing in the High Court favoured the present appellants. They lost no time in trying to take advantage of it. The decision to lift the current injunctive relief would be simple if not for the pending appeal against the WCLAL decision.
6. In his decision, the learned judge referred to that appeal. It must have been brought to his attention for that remark to be made. In written submissions on this appeal, counsel chose not to make any reference to it. That, we emphatically point out, was wrong. Counsel has a duty to bring to the attention of the Court matters both favourable and unfavourable of which they are aware. To omit a detail such as a pending appeal is plainly wrong.
7. On the other hand, since filing the appeal and paying the required fees on 14 June 2021, counsel for the Respondent to this appeal has taken no steps whatsoever to prosecute his client’s appeal. The client is presently protected by interlocutory relief but cannot expect to remain so protected if the High Court or this Court finds that the appeal is not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence.
8. It seems to this Court that, for the time being, the status quo should be maintained. We direct that the pending appeal against the WCLAC decision be drawn to the attention of the Registrar as still requiring steps to be taken to prepare the appeal for hearing
9. This appeal is dismissed. Costs of and incidental to the appeal are to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent, to be agreed or taxed.

Goldsbrough P
Hansen JA
Wilson JA