Milikada v Ghona [2001] SBHC 38; HC-CC 057 of 2000 (25 June 2001)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 057 of 2000

SILAS MILIKADA AND PRESLEY WATTS

(Trading As JP Enterprises of P.O. Box R222 Honiara)

v<

ANTGHONA &

CENTRAL BANK OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> High Court of Solomon Islands

Before: F. O. Kabui, J

Civil Case No. 057 of 20001

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Hearing: 25 June, 2001

Judgment: 25^th June, 2001

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> A & H Lawyers for the Plaintiff’s

Defendants not present

JUDGMENT

(Kabui, J): This is an application by the Plaintiffs by Summons filed on 8^th June 2001. The Orders sought in the Summons are these-

1. &nbbsp;&&nsp;; Tsp; That that the Plaintiffs have leave to enter Judgment against the Defendant in the sum of $50,000.00 togewith est aper annum from 1st June 2001 up to and including the date of paym payment.

2. That Jutgmenenbe ed erainsgainst the Defendant in the sum of $50,000.0 together with interest at 5% per annum from 1st June 2001 up to and including the date of payment.

3.t">3. ;&nspp; Tsat the Defendant dant pay the Plaintiffs' costs of and in connection with this case.

4. &nsp; & p;&nbp; Ssp; Such furtherthe oorde orders as the court thinks just.

>&nt">

This application was brought under Order 14, ru4, rule 11 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1964 (the High Court Rules). It is based upon facts set out in the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons, and Statement of Claim (amended). The Summons was also supported by facts set out in the affidavit filed by Mr. Milikada on 8^th June 2001.

The facts

In or about January 2001, the Plaintiffs iffs gave $80,000.00 to the Defendant to meet the cost of the Defendant's wife and his sister taking a trip to Australia. The Defendant was then an employee of the Central Bank of Solomon Islands (C BSI). The trip to Australia did not take place. The Defendant immediately refunded $30,000.00 and invested the balance of $50,000.00 by buying up Treasury Bills from the CBSI. The treatment of the initial $80,000.00 in his way was the result of an oral agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. The other term of that oral agreement was that on the maturity of the Treasury Bills, the Defendant was to refund the $50,000.00 and would retain the interest earned on that sum. The $50,000.00 was to remain the property of the Plaintiffs' at all times. The Treasury Bills matured in the week commencing on 8^th April 2001. The Defendant has not since paid the $50,000.00 to the Plaintiffs upon demand. By letter dated 30^th May 2001, the Defendant admitted liability and said he would pay his debt to he Plaintiffs' as soon as the CBSI released that sum of $50,000.00 plus interest to him. Perhaps for that reason, the Defendant did not bother to appear in Court this morning though served on 12^th June 2001, with a copy of he Plaintiffs’ Summons. In my view, the appropriate procedure for application for judgment on admission of facts either on pleading or otherwise is governed by Order 34, rule 6 of the High Court Rules. Rule 6 states-

“…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 judgment 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”...

/p>

Clearly, in this case, the Defendant admitted liability by his letter of 30^th May 2001 before he filed his Memorandum of Appearance on 31^st May 2001.In fact, the Memorandum of Appearance was signed the same date the letter of admission of liability was signed and dated by the Defendant. On this basis, I would grant the application sought by the Plaintiffs in terms of Order 34, rule 6 f the High Court Rules. I do not think I can grant interest at the rate of 5% as sought by the Plaintiffs'. There are two reasons. The first is that payment of 5% interest was not part of the oral agreement between the parties. The second is that the reason for the non-payment of $50,000.00 was due o the advice of Mr. Ronia a CBSI's employee who may have a valid reason for the delay of payment. It would seem that the delay is not the fault of the defendant. It may well be due to the Government's cash flow problem experienced on a daily basis in this country. Apart from that, the application is granted.

span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: -.1pt">F. O. Kabui

Judge