Suakapu v Chairman of St Josephs Catholic Secondary School Tenaru Education Board [1998] SBHC 47; HC-CC 054 of 1997 (2 November 1998)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 54 of 1997

<

DONALD SUAKAPU

/p>

v

/p>

CHAIRMAN OF ST JOSEPH'S
CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL, TENARU EDUCATION BOARD

High Court of Solomon Islands
Before: Lungole-Awich J Civil Case No. 54 of 1997

Hearing: 26^{th Judgment: 2nd November, 199, 1998}

Counsel: S. Manetoali for the Plaintiff;
Respondent not Represented

p>

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> JUDGMENT

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> LUNGOLE-AWICH J: The plaintiff, Donald Suakapu, was a student in form 4 at Joseph Catholic Secondary School, Tenaru, in 1996. On the evening of 11.9.1996 he was confronted by an employee of the school, the employee accused him of having stolen school chicken. The plaintiff denied the allegation. On 12.9.1996 he was taken to a teacher who repeated the charge. According to the plaintiff, he denied the allegation. He was, then taken to the principal. The plaintiff said that before the principal, he again denied the allegation, despite persuasion and coercion to admit. On 17.9.1998 he was handed a letter dated 16.9.1998, now exhibit DS1 to the plaintiffs affidavit. The letter was addressed to the plaintiffs father; it included the passage, “your son Donald Suakapu has been sent home for an indefinite period pending the Board of Governor's decision”. By 28.2.1997, some 5 months later, when the plaintiff filed this case, he or his father had not heard from the school about the decision of the Board.

The Plaintiff's Case.

The plaintiffs case is that uspension was unlawful, it , it was in breach of natural justice. He claimed damages and asked for order to place him back in, “any other similar secondary school”, and of course asked for costs of the case.

No Reply by the Defendant.

The defendant, the Chairman of at Joseph’s Catholic Secondary School, Tenaru naru (Education Board), did not file any case papers in reply to the plaintiffs case and did not appear in court at the hearing of the case. On the case file there are affidavits of service of the case papers and of notice of hearing. It is apparent that at Joseph’s School Board, led by its Chairman, simply decided to ignore the case papers. That attitude is least expected from institutions that profess to uphold the high moral codes that religious spiritual teachings exhorts of ordinary people.

The Events as Affected the Plaintiff.

The plaintiffs account of his indefinite suspension which now seems to be expulsion, stands uncontradicted and appears probable in my assessment. The plaintiff was given opportunities to state his case to the Science Teacher, Mr. John Rofeta and to the Deputy Principal. Those inquiries met the requirement of natural Justice. Things went wrong at the Board of Governors level. The Board had not, by 28.10.1997, some 13 months after the suspension of the plaintiffs, met to decide the fate of the plaintiff. In my view the effect of the omission by the Board for a very long time, to attend to its duty to decide the allegation against the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has been punished by the Board without the Board having afforded him hearing. It has been total denial of opportunity to the plaintiff to know the extent of the charge before the Board, against the plaintiff, and total denial of opportunity to the plaintiff to state his side of the case.

L Review Applicable to Private Institution.

/p>

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Althoughoseph’s School is a non statutory body, it is bound to obse observe the rules of natural justice when it decides matters that affect the interest of students, staff and any-body whose interest is or might be affected by decisions made by the Board. The cases of : Clement Kakano v Attorney General HC.CC No 214 of 1991, Desmond Nimepo v. Premier of Guadalcanal Province HC.CC No 379 of 1995 and Harley Simata v. Goldie College HC.CC No 89 of 1997, and the English case of Schmdt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 and Australian case of FAI Insurance Ltd v. Winneke [1982] 151 Ch. R347 are examples.

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Decision.

My judgment is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court makes the declaratiot the suspension of the plaintiff became unlawful bec because the School Board adopted it and turned it into expulsion in breach of the rule of natural justice. It may well be that the plaintiff stole school chicken, we do not know the facts about that, but the Board of Governors was required by law to deal with his case fairly according to natural justice. The Court has been informed at the hearing that the plaintiff was no longer interested in returning to school, had he desired, I would have granted mandamus compelling Joseph’s Catholic Secondary School to take him back in school. Even so, I grant leave to the plaintiff should he wish, to apply for order of mandamus based on this judgment, compelling Joseph's Catholic Secondary School to take him back in school. I doubt whether the Court can order another school completely unrelated to St. Joseph to take in the plaintiff. What about the right of that other school to be heard?

The plaintiff asked for compensation for his school fees lost and for general damages. This is a suitable case to grant damages in. I grant both the special damages, of $800.00 being school fees paid, and a sum equivalent to costs to the plaintiff of travelling home. I also grant general damages to be assessed by the Registrar. I notice that several solicitors do not specify damages that they sue for. In my view that is bad pleading. Quantum of general damages must be specified in pleading to make the claim complete. In future I shall consider returning such cases back for completion of pleading.

It is regrettable that at Joseph's Catholic Secondary School, a well res respected religious institution has blatantly disregarded consideration for justice when it dealt with the plaintiff’s case, and now has simply ignored proceedings before this Court. I hope the school will rethink its ways, and return to conducting its business concerning interests of students, staff and the public in a manner that will retain the respect that the public has for St. Joseph.

The defendant will pay the costs of this case to the plff.

Delivered this 2^nd day of November 19pan>

High Court of Solomon Islands

Sam Lungole-Awich
JUDGE.span>