Kimitora v Home Finance Corporation of Solomon Islands [1999] SBHC 41; HC-CC 001 of 1998 (20 April 1999)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMONLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 1 of 1998

BURNLEY KIMITORA & FLORIE KIMITORA

lass=lass="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> v

HOME FINANCE CORPORATION OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
& JOHN IPO & JOANNA IPO

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

p class="MsoNormal"rmal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Hearing: 19/4/1999
Judgment: 20/4/1999

Mr. Kama for the plaintiffs
Mrs. Loa Tepai for the dants

JUDGMENT

p class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The defendant states that it filed defence on 6.10.1998, the plaintiffntiffs have not taken any further step so pleadings are to be deemed closed since. That would be over 6 months ago. The plaintiffs have not argued that pleadings have not closed. They simply gave reasons which they see as justifying their delay, and submitted that r1 of Order 32 is not mandatory, any party could take out summons for directions, the defendant should have done so when it realised that the plaintiffs had delayed in taking out summons for directions. They asked the Court to turn the hearing of this application into hearing for direction orders.

The plaintiffs say that they delayed because they were away in the Western Province attending to a timber logging operation. That is not a good enough reason to excuse their default. They were aware that they had a case in Court, they should have given clear instruction to their solicitor to proceed while they would be away. The reason is even weaker because it was the plaintiffs who brought the case to Court, they cannot proceed only when it is convenient to them, however inconvenient to the defendant. Moreover, on an earlier occasion they defaulted in filing amended statement of claim in time, although the Court excused them on that occasion.

I shall allow the defendant’s application, but I shall not order the relief of dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim. The reliefs that I order are to put the plaintiffs on terms, and to order directions in the proceedings straight away. The plaintiffs will pay the defendants costs of this application within 30 days of today’s date otherwise the case will be dismissed. The costs are to be agreed or taxed by the Registrar. The defendant is to apply to the Registrar within 14 days in the event that costs are not agreed.

ass="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> The direction orders that I make are:

1. Parties are to make discovery byry by lists within 7 days.

2. Parties are to inspect lists and may request further discovery within 14 days after discovery.

3. So far there appears to be no need for interrogatories, but pbut parties may apply for leave to serve interrogatories.

4. Taintiffs are to file bundleundle of pleadings and certificate of readiness within another 14 days after inspection at (2) will have closed.

5. Plaintiffsto ask for date of trial eial either at the time of filing bundle of pleadings at (4) or within another 7 days from filing the bundle and certificate.

. Compliance with these directions mean that the plaintiffstiffs will at latest ask for date of hearing within 42 days of today’s date.

p class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> 7. Costs of this cation are granted to the dthe defendant against the plaintiffs and must be paid within 30 days. In the event of failure, the defendant is to ask for listing for the plaintiffs to show cause why their case’ should not be dismissed because of default in complying with the order for costs, which order is mandatory.

Delivered this Tuesday 20^th day of April 1999

At the High Court

Honiara

Sam Lungole-Awich
Judge