Sam v Sare [1998] SBHC 63; HC-CC 195 of 1998 (6 November 1998)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 195 of 1998

BEN SAM

-v-

JACK SARE

In the High Court of Solomon Islands
(FRANK KABUI, J)

Hearing: 6th November 1998
Ruling: 6th November 1998

Bridge Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Defendant In Person

RULING

(Frank Kabui J) This is an application by the Plaintiff by Summons filed on 13th October, 1998 for the following orders:-

1. That Motor Vehicle Registration Number A5718 be detained by the court until further orders.
   
2. That the Plaintiff be allowed to repossess the said Motor Vehicle and sell it after 30 days in the event the Defendant fails to satisfy the Plaintiff’s claim.
   
3. Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the Defendant.
   
4. Any further orders the Court, in the circumstances deems fit.
   

The Defendant has not been served with this Summons on the ground that he may interfere with the subject matter of this application - a motor vehicle A5718. There is also no evidence of service of the writ of summons filed the same day upon the defendant. The Defendant may well be not aware of what is brewing against him. Be that as it may, this application is being made under Order S.3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1964. Normally, the Plaintiff must show that he or she stands to suffer damage as a result of the property being in the possession of the Defendant. At least, there must be a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff. In this case, there is no evidence to show that the Plaintiff would suffer damage as a result of A5718 being in the possession of the Defendant. In his affidavit filed on 13th October, 1998, the Plaintiff only says in paragraph 8 of his affidavit that if the Defendant is allowed to keep the A5718 without honouring the agreement with the Plaintiff, A5718 would lose its value. This is not evidence of a possible destruction of A5718 or wasting of it. I think the quicker the Plaintiff terminates the agreement with the Defendant and repossesses A5718 the better. Certainly, a quick remedy for the Plaintiff in this case lies else. As I have said, there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s application for a preservation order for A5718. The application is refused with costs.

Dated this 11th day of November 1998

F. O. Kabui
Judge