Oiu v Teahou [1996] SBHC 20; HC-LAC 001 of 1995 (24 April 1996)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Land Appeal Case No. 1 of 1995

ter">MATHEW OIU

EZEKIEL TEAHOU

Before: Muria, ria, CJ

Hearing: 24 April 1996 at Auki - Ruling: 24 April 1996.

el: B. Titiulu for Appellant; A. Radclyffe for Respondent

rong>MURIA CJ:

This matter was adjourned to Honiara following an application for an adjournment on behalf of the applicant. The court then said that this matter must proceed when it is fixed for hearing here at Honiara and that failure to do so the appeal would be truck out.

At the hearing in Auki, the appellant was not present. Only the spokesman attended. Now the appellant again did not turn up, although his Counsel has informed this Court that he (the appellant) was unable to attend due to the death of his father-in-law last Sunday. There has not been any source before the Court to confirm the reason for the appellant's absence today but all that we have is Counsel's word for it.

I would have expected that in such a situation Counsel would have taken the necessary steps in furnishing the Court with some materials to assist the Court in ascertaining the veracity of what the appellant had said as the reason for not turning up in Court. Failure to do so must be regarded as a failure by Counsel who is an officer of the Court to assist the Court. We are all under pressure of duty but professional prudence demands that Counsel in such a case as this must at least show that they provide assistance to the Court in the interest of justice and of their client. I regret that this has not been done in this case.

Counsel says that the application for leave was suppose to have been made by Mr. Lavery at the last High Court sitting in Auki. Mr. Lavery did not do so.

This matter was filed in January 1995 and no doubt the need to have leave to call evidence in respect of the matters raised in grounds 2(a) & (b) and 3 would have long been realised. Even after the last adjournment, if leave was not sought at last sitting in Auki, appropriate notice of intention to seek leave to call evidence would have been made before today's hearing.

These omissions I feel are no slight and they do affect the Court's discretion in deciding an application such as this. In the eyes of the Court they show a lack of seriousness in the matter put before the Court. The Court cannot encourage the prolonging of customary land cases. There must be finality in such cases.

I am afraid in the present case, the appellant has not satisfied the Court that this is a case where leave and adjournment can be properly given.

I therefore refuse leave.

[The appellant was not able to proceed with his appeal and sought an adjournment which was refused. The appeal was therefore struck out with the parties to bear their own costs of this application. The costs of the last hearing at Auki to be paid by the appellants]

ter">GJB Muria
CHIEF JUSTICE