Maneasi v Sori [2001] SBHC 161; HCSI-LAC 001 of 2000 (7 March 2001)

LAC No 001, 2000, HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISALANDS

Land Appeal Case No 001 of 2000

JAMES MANEASI

-v-

CHARLES SORI SORI

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.)

Hearing: 5 March 2001
Ruling: 7 March 2001

A. Nori for Appellant
A. Radclyffe for Respondent

MURIA CJ: This is an appeal against the learned Registrar of High Court’s decision contained in a letter dated 11 October 2000 from the Registrar of High Court to the appellant’s solicitors striking out the Appeal against the decision of the Customary Land Appeal Court (Central) (“the CLAC”). The main reasons in support of this appeal are that the appellant was prevented from complying with the request for payment of extra fees by circumstances beyond his control, and that the fees have since been paid.

The CLAC’s decision was made on 19 October 1999. There is some suggestion that the appeal against the CLAC’s decision was filed outside the three months period allowed by law. Mr. Radclyffe argued that the appeal was filed in the High Court on 24 March 2000 which was well beyond the three months statutory limitation. As such, counsel contended, there was no appeal lawfully filed before the Court and the Court ought not to have accepted it in the first place. See cases of Seselono -v- Kikiolo [1982] SILR 15 and Patatoa -v- Talauai [1983] SILR 112.

Mr. Nori contended that the time limit was complied with in this case, as the appeal against the CLAC decision was lodged in time with the CLAC's office. Having perused the filed and papers, I accept that the appeal was lodged within the time limit allowed for appeal. The appeal was lodged with the Central Magistrates Courts which must be taken as being lodged with the Clerk to CLAC pursuant to 0.64 A, r2 (1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules together with the fee of $500.00 paid on 12 January 2000 (GTR No. B740260). It was only on 24 March 2000 that the appeal documents were sent to the High Court, hence, the date 24 March 2000 bearing upon the Notice of Appeal as being the date being filed in the High Court. For the purpose of complying with the time limitation under s.256 (3) Land and Titles Act the time when an appeal against a CLAC decision is deemed to have been brought is on the day on which the notice of appeal has been filed with the Clerk to CLAC or when the appeal fee has been paid. See 0.60 A r 3. In the present case, as I have said, the appeal against the CLAC decision was brought within the three months as required under s.256(3) of the L T A.

The next consideration is whether the learned Registrar of High Court was entitled to strike out the appeal for non-compliance with 0.60A r 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. The provision of r. 5 provides as follows:

5. “The appellant shall within fourteen days after filing notice of appeal or paying the appeal fee, whichever is the later, deposit in a Magistrate’s Court a sum of money sufficient in the opinion of the clerk to cover the expense of making up and forwarding the record of appeal, and shall also deposit a sum of money or give security therefor by bond with one or more sureties to the satisfaction of the clerk sufficient in the opinion of the clerk for the payment of any costs which may be ordered to be paid by the appellant. Such bond shall be in Form No. 52 of Appendix B.”

It will be observed that there is no mention under that rule of any power confer on the Registrar of High Court to strike out an appeal for non-payment of security for costs. The power conferred upon the Registrar under 0.60 A r 2(2) specifically empowers him to strike out any ground of appeal which is vague or general in terms or which discloses no reasonable ground of appeal claiming an error of law or failure to comply with procedural requirement of a written law. That is not the case here.

The rules, however, empower the Registrar of High Court to take certain steps regarding the non-payment of security for costs. Rule 5 of 0.60A requires the appellant to pay security for costs and if the appellant fails to do that the Clerk to CLAC under Rule 6(1) and (2) may refuse to prepare the record of appeal for transmission to the Registrar until the appellant complies with the said Rule 5 and the Registrar of High Court has signified that the notice of appeal is in order. It is also within the power of the Registrar of High Court under Rule 6 to refuse to signify that the record of appeal is in order, if Rule 5 has not been complied with.

The question which may arise and which impliedly had arisen in this case, is after the 14 days time period allowed under Rule 5 lapses, what should the Court do? In such a case, in my judgment, the Clark to CLAC should advice the Registrar of High Court accordingly and the Registrar is entitled to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and apply to the Court to strike out the appeal for failure to comply with the requirement of Rule 5. That power is exercisable by the judge. That was what should have happened in this case but was not so.

In view of what I have said there is no need for me to consider at this stage the ground raised by Mr. Nori regarding the circumstances preventing the appellant from complying with the request for payment of extra fees. For now the proper course would be to quash the learned Registrar of High Court’s decision contained in his letter to the appellant’s solicitors dated 11 October 2000. This matter will now be relisted on a dated to be fixed by Registrar of High Court before a Judge on the basis that the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be struck out for non-compliance with 0.60 A r 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules. Costs reserved to that hearing.

Order accordingly.

(Sir John Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE