Sehuitai v Esk Clothing Manufacturing [1998] SBHC 61; HC-CC 267 of 1997 (14 September 1998)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case 267 of 1997

MOANA SEHUITAI

V

ESK CLOTHING MANUFACTURING AND PETER BONG

High Court of Solomon Islands
(LUNGOLE-AWICH, J)

Date of Heading: Friday 11.9.1998
Date of Judgment: Monday 14th September 1998

Appellant: In Person
J Sullivan for Respondents

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 1A(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 [19989] SILR 54, judgment of G. Ward C.J.

The rest of the grounds of appeal based on default, were complaints that the Registrar erred in computing days within 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.

On the merit of the case, the defences put forward by the defendants are definitely arguable. The plaintiffs’ claim is for wages, social security contribution to NPF, commission for sale of equipment and associated damages. The defendants deny that the arrangement between them and the plaintiff was that of employer and employee, and they deny that the sale of equipment was sale involving commission. There is no affidavit evidence filed by the plaintiff, to render the denials by the defendants baseless. The facts remained even, it was for the plaintiff to tilt the balance in his favour, by adducing evidence. The application for summary judgement before the Registrar could not have succeeded.

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 dismissed. The case is to proceed 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 plaintiff has been allowed to use the Registry of the Court as his address. I think it is most undesirable. Controversy involving court staff could arise.

I understand that pleading has now reached discovery stage, I make the following direction orders:

1. Discovery be by list, and not later than 4 weeks from today.
   
2. Inspections to be not later than 2 weeks after the time limited for discovery and at Sol Law’s Office in Honiara.
   

3. Interrogatories, if required, are to be by leave of court.

4. The plaintiff is to apply, within 14 days after inspections will have ended, for date of hearing.
   
5. Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondents, the defendants.
   

Delivered this Monday the 14th day of Sept., 1998,
At the High Court,
Honiara.

Sam Lungole-Awich
Judge