National Bank of Solomon Islands Ltd v Premium Balsa Products Ltd [2001] SBHC 124; HC-CC 157 of 2000 (12 July 2001)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case Number 157 of 2000

NATIONAL BANK OF SOLOMON ISLANDS LIMITED

-V-

PREMIUM BALSA PRODUCTS LIMITED
& VERNON SMITH AND ROSE ANNIE ANILABATA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)

Hearing: 11th July 2001
Judgment: 12th July 2001

Sol-Law for the Plaintiff
A & H for the First Defendant
Vernon Smith in person

PALMER J.: The Plaintiff obtained summary judgment in this case against the First Defendant and Rose Anilabata (one of the Second Defendants) on 17th October 2000. Second Defendant Vernon Smith now comes to Court by Summons filed 20th June 2001 seeking orders inter alia, to have the summary Judgment obtained on 17th October 2000 set aside and the Defendants be allowed to defend this action. Mr Smith’s Summons first came before this Court on 3rd July 2001. It was adjourned to allow Mr Smith time to seek legal assistance in his personal capacity and at the same time instruct Counsel Apaniai as the Solicitor representing the First Defendant. When matter came before this Court on 11th July 2001, Counsel Apaniai indicated to the Court that the First Defendant would not take part in prosecuting the Summons filed 20th June 2001 and that it was being pursued in this hearing by Mr. Smith himself in his personal capacity as one of the Second Defendants. Before Mr. Smith however could commence with his submissions, Counsel Katahanas for the Plaintiff raised a point of law as to the competence of the Court to deal with paragraph 1 of the orders sought. Mr. Katahanas relied on two cases Langdale and Another v. Danby [1982] 1 WLR 1123 at page 1132 (a House of Lords decision) and Wayne Frederick Morris and Another v. Clement Tori, Jack Wale and Others Civil Case Number 37 of 2001 (unreported) Kabui J., judgement delivered on 23rd May 2001, to point out that the summary judgment obtained against the First Defendant and Rose Anilabata was a final judgment and that the only way it can be challenged is by way of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Accordingly he argued this Court had no jurisdiction to deal with that part of the summons. Counsel Apaniai conceded the arguments put forwarded by Mr Katahanas and explained to Court that he had given clear instructions to his client about the proper course of action to be taken in this matter. Defendant Smith had little to offer by way of response to the submissions of Mr Katahanas. I accepted Counsel’s submission and dismissed paragraph 1 of that Summons.

Mr Katahanas then proceeded to argue that the Court can make appropriate orders in respect of paragraph 2 of the orders sought, in view of the admission made by Mr Smith therein. Learned Counsel relied on Rule 6 of Order 34 which provided:

“Any party may at any stage of a cause or matter, where admissions of facts have been made, either on the pleadings, or otherwise, apply to the Court for such judgement or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the Court may upon such application make such order, or give such judgment, as the Court may think just.”

Mr Smith initially objected to that application but after it was pointed out to him that that was what he had sought in his Summons in any event, he conceded the point and agreed to an order to be made giving judgment for the sum conceded in partial satisfaction of the claim of the Plaintiff.

There was also a cheque for the sum of $1,225.00 paid to the Plaintiff by Mr Smith it appears in final and full satisfaction of the debt but which was rejected by the Plaintiff. The cheque was surrendered to the Court but on concession by Mr Smith that it be paid towards partial satisfaction of the outstanding debt it was accepted by the Plaintiff and the cheque released on that basis. As to the question of costs, this must be borne by the Second Defendant (Vernon Smith).

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

1. Dismiss paragraph 1 of the Summons filed 20th June 2001.
   
2. Enter judgment against the Second Defendant (Vernon Smith) for the sum of $14,948.34 in partial satisfaction of the claim of the Plaintiff.
   
3. Second Defendant (Vernon Smith) to file statement of defence within 7 days herewith for the balance of the claim.
   
4. Discovery by list 7 days thereafter.
   
5. Interrogatories and Inspection 14 days thereafter.
   
6. The matter to be listed for trial on application to the Registrar of High Court by the Plaintiff thereafter.
   

THE COURT.