ESK CLOTHING MANUFACTURING
AND PETER BONG
High Court of Solomon Islands
Before: Lungole-A J
Civil Case 267 267 of 1997
Date of HearFriday 11.9.1998
Date of Judgment: Monday 14th Seph September 1998
class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Counsel: Appellant In Person,
J Sullivan for Respondentsspan>
pan lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: Times New Roman">
JUDGMENT
(LUNGOLE-AWICH,
J):
Appellant, Mr.
Moana Sehuitai is the plaintiff in this case. On 28.7.1998, he applied for
judgment against the respondents, ESK Clothing
Manufacturing Ltd and Peter
Bong who are the defendants. The application for judgment was heard by the
Registrar, Mr.
David Chetwynd, and refused. The judgment was pronounced on 28.7.1998, but
the written judgement was dated 6.8.1998.
The appellant has appealed against
the judgement of the Registrar. I heard the appeal on 11 .9.1998 in chambers
as provided
for in Order 57 rule 1 A(3) of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules and this is my judgment in the appeal.
The first ground of the appeal is erroneous. Jurisdiction of the Registrar
is a matter of legislation. In our case the
legislation is the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules. Order 57 rr1 and 14, as amended, state the
jurisdiction of the
Registrar. He is authorised to hear all cases that a
judge may hear in chambers except those specified therein. The plaintiff's
case before the Registrar was one such case that the Registrar could hear in
chambers. The case, as I understood it,
was for judgment on two grounds in
the alternative namely; that the defendants failed to file defence in time
or that
the defence was not sustainable. The Registrar is indeed
specifically authorised by r14 (10) to hear application for leave
to sign
default judgment. An earlier case on the point is Keyuken Pacific United
v Harper [1998] SILR 54, judgment of G. Ward C.J.
The rest of the grounds of apbased on default, were
complaints that the Registrar erred in computing days within whin which
the
defendants were required to file their defences. In the judgment of the
Registrar, that subject of complaint did
not affect the final decision; he
decided that both parties defaulted. I need not go into the details of the
computation.
It was a case in which even if there had been failure to comply
with time limited; the Registrar could have exercised discretion
and
condoned lateness. Moreover, the plaintiff's writ of summons could have been
successfully objected to on the ground
that the plaintiff's address for
service was not given therein.
It is not clear whether reason or reasons for the decision of the Registrar
were given when he pronounced judgment on
28.7.1998 or whether when he
pronounced his decision he informed the parties that he would give reasons
later. The point
was not taken in the appeal except to explain appellant's
own delay in appealing in seven days, I shall not comment on the
pronouncement of the decision and the subsequent written judgment.
Appeal of the plaintiff is dismisshe case is to proceed with with pleading
and on to trial, if need be. Order that costs
were reserved is changed. In
view of the Registrar's finding that both parties were at fault, costs of
the application
incurred by each party should be borne by the party.
<
One matter worries me; the plai has been allowed to use thse the Registry of
the Court as his address. I think it is most
undesirable. Controversy
involving court staff could arise.
I
understand thatding has now reached discovery stage, I make the
foll following direction orders:
1. Discovery be by list, and, and not later than 4 weeks from today.
2. Inions to be not later than 2han 2 weeks after the time limited for
discovery and at Sol Law's Office in Honiara.
3. Interrogatories,equired, are to be by leaveleave of court.
4. The plaintiff is to apply, ply, within 14 days after inspections will have
ended, for date of hearing.
. Costs of the appeal are aare awarded to the respondents, the defendants.
Delivered this Monday the 14th day of Sept., 1998,
Sam Lungole-Awich
JUDGE
[About the School of Law]
| [Courses Offered] | [Course Materials] | [Staff]
[Pacific Law Materials] | [Journal of South Pacific Law]
[Emalus Campus Library] | [Recommended Internet Links]
[Latest Additions] | [Search the Site Site]
© University of the South Pacific 1998-2002
If you have any comments, suggestions or
difficulties with using this web site please email
Robynne Blake,
Internet Project Manager, The School
of Law, The University of the South Pacific or fax: (678) 27785
Last Update:
Thursday, July 04, 2002 15:12
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1998/42.html
