Beti v Kalikoqu Landowners [1996] SBHC 59; HC-CC 146 of 1995 (30 October 1996)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 146 of 1995

GORDON BETI,
J. ZAMAKEVU

v

KALIKOQU LANDOWNERS
(Association Registered Trustees (incorporated))

Before: Muria, CJ.

Hearing: 6 June 1996

Judgment: 30 October 1996

<

Counsel: P. Lavery Plaintiffs;

P Tegavota Defendants

INTERLOCUTORY JUDGEMENT

MURIA CJ:

In this application the plaintiffs have sought an interim injunction against inst all the defendants. Originally the order sought was only against the first defendant and it was granted by this Court on 27 July 1995 and extended on 7 September 1995. However by the subsequent order of this Court on 26 October 1995, the second, third and fourth defendants were added and the order of 27 July 1995 was further extended to cover the three additional defendants.

It must be noted that by the order of 7 September 1995 the Court decided to reserve its interlocutory judgement on this application. It further order that the defendant to file further affidavit and the plaintiffs to file an answer. The Court would then consider its decision after receiving the affidavit and the reply to it. Counsel would also then be at liberty to make further submissions at a date to be fixed.

Despite the order from this Court, no affidavit has ever been received from the defendants since 7 September 1995. Consequently no date has been fixed for the parties to make further submission. In those circumstances Counsel for the plaintiffs requests (by his letter of 15 March 1996) that the Court should proceed and decide on the application on the basis of the submissions made to the Court at the hearing on 7 September 1995. I am inclined to agree with Counsel for the plaintiffs in this regard.

However I note that previous order of this Court extends the order of 27 July 1995 and in view of the concession by the defendants as to paragraph one (1) of the summons dated 23 May 1995 and filed on 25 May 1995, I feel the only sensible course to take is to grant the order sought in the said paragraph (1). In my view, the orders sought in paragraphs (2) & (3) of the same summons must also follow in this case and I grant those orders also.

Directions as to the conduct of this case were issued under the order of this Court on 26 October 1995. That order although made on 26 October 1995 had not been issued as the draft of the order had not been filed until 29 March 1996. However Counsel for the defendants was present when the order was made on 26 October 1995. Despite that, there was no Amended Defence filed in addition to the fact that the defendants had not also complied with the order of 7 September 1995.

In those circumstances I feel the defendants must pay the costs of this application.

As soon as a certificate of readiness is filed this matter must be fixed for trial.

GJB MURIA
CHIEF JUSTICE