Livia v Livia [1996] SBHC 91; HCSI-CC 338 of 1994 (26 September 1996)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No.338 of 1994

JANE LIVIA

-v-

SILAS LIVIA & JOSEPHINE VOZOTO

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer.J)
Civil Case No. 338 of 1994

Hearing: 25th September 1996
Ruling: 26th September 1996

C Ashley for the Applicant
S.Manetoali for the Respondent

PALMER J: RULING: The Applicant seeks orders by summons filed on 9 September 1996 for the Respondent to execute loan documents lodged with the Home Finance Corporation, which required the joint signatures of both parties to be effective and acceptable to the said Corporation, but which the Respondent had refused to endorse The loan documents relate to a house which the parties regard as the matrimonial home and is jointly owned by them.

Both parties have been living separately from each other, with the Applicant residing in the matrimonial home with the two children of the marriage. According to the affidavit evidence filed in support by the Applicant, on 9 September 1996, she had sought to have a loan obtained initially from the Solomon Islands National Provident Fund to have the house extended so that she could then put it out on rent to assist with the care and support of her children, which had weighed heavily on her; the Respondent it seems not giving a helping hand to her. That loan application unfortunately could not be proceeded with on the grounds that the Respondent had refused to counter-sign the loan documents as required by the Fund. She then sought another loan from the Home Finance Corporation, but again is stuck with the same problem: that is, that the Respondent is refusing to co-operate and counter-sign the loan documents as required by the Corporation. She now comes to this Court seeking orders inter alia, to compel the Respondent to counter-sign those loan documents.

Learned Counsel, Mr Manetoali, for the Respondent has raised a preliminary point, based on the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this application and which forms the substance of this ruling. Mr. Manetoali submits that the jurisdiction of this court to deal with any auxiliary matters pertaining to this case had ceased with effect from the date judgment was given on 5th May, 1995, when the petition of the Applicant for divorce had been dismissed by this Court This Court accordingly had no jurisdiction to deal with such auxiliary matter as arising between the parties after the petition had been dismissed.

With respect, I must agree. The issue raised before this court is a new and separate issue and not related to the petition raised earlier in this case. But even if it were related as sought to be submitted by learned Counsel for the Applicant. That petition had been dismissed and accordingly was at an end. The jurisdiction of this Court accordingly to deal with any auxiliary matters ceased from the date of that Judgment as well. It would not be proper therefore for this court to entertain this application when clearly it had no jurisdiction to do so.

On the other hand, it can be appreciated that the Applicant does have a grievance which somehow should be addressed, but not under the covering of this case. Learned Counsel would have to address the correct form of action to take in order to activate the jurisdiction of this Court again. That may mean re-filing another petition, if not for divorce, then it may be for judicial separation.

ORDERS OF THE COURT

1. Application by summons filed on 9th September, 1996, dismissed.

2. No order for costs.

A. R. PALMER
JUDGE