HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON
ISLANDS
Civil Case No. 167 of 2000
class="Mso="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
IN THE ESTATE
OF SOLOMON SUNAONE MAMALONI
APPLICATION
BY MARY TUTUANA
MAMALONI
class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
High Court of Solomon Islands
Before: Frank Kabui, J
Civil Case No: 167 of 2000
Hg: 16th July
2001
Judgement: 16th July
2001
P. Tegavota for the Applicant
Mrs. A. Tongarutu for the
Respondent’s
JUDGMENT
(Kabui, J): By Summons
filed on 21st May 2001, tplicant seeks the followingowing Orders-
lass="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
1 &nbbsp; ;&n. …. … … … … … … …
pan lEN-USle="fize: t">&n/span>
>
<
2 p;&nbbsp;&nsp; &nsp; p; . …. … … … …
class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: -43.2pt; margin-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
4. &nnbsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;& Tsp; That thet the Court
grant such other or further orders as the Court sees fit.
class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Proposed orders 1 and 2 were
withdrawn at the hearing this morning by el for the Applicant, Mr.
Mr.
Tegavota. Mr. Tegavota’s
argument was simple and straightforward. He said
whilst the deceased held half of all the shares in Somma Limited, the
fix-term estates registered in the name of Somma Limited were the properties
of that company being separate legal entity
from the deceased who was an
individual when alive. In view of the withdrawal of proposed Orders 1 and 2,
above Counsel
for the Respondent Mrs. Tongarutu, also withdrew proposed
order 1 in the Respondent’s Notice of Motion filed on 18th June
2001. The Respondent now only seeks the following orders-
class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
1. &nbbsp;& bsp; … … …
class="MsoNormal"rmal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-lein-left: 72.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
2. The Appticant can
o Acc Account to the Respondent for the properties of the Deceased’s Estate
removed by him.
<3. &nbbsp; Such other Orders
th the Court sees fit to make.
class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: -36.0pt; margin-left: 72.0prgin-1; mabotto>&nbs>
As regards the proposed order 3
in the Applicant’s Summons filed on 21st May 2001, I have no
difficulty in saying that I would grant it as sought by the Applicant. I
grant it accordingly. As
regards the proposed Order 2 sought in the Notice
of Motion filed on 18th June 2001, the position appears to be
this. The Applicant is one of the beneficiaries in respect of the deceased’s
estate.
The Respondent is the Administrator of the deceased’s estate in
pursuant to Letters of Administration dated 15th December 2000.
The administration of the deceased’s estate is still in progress and has not
concluded. In the mean time,
the Respondent alleges that the Applicant
without her permission, had removed from the deceased’s residence in Honiara
two dining tables one deep freezer, one coffee table, one set of oval table
and chairs. The Applicant had also removed one
CD/Video player without the
Respondent’s permission. These items would appear to be part of the
deceased’s estate. As
the Applicant has not responded to the Respondent’s
affidavit filed on 18th June 2001, position is not clear as to
the ownership of the items alleged Exhibit “MTM2” attached to the
Respondent’s
affidavit filed on 2nd August 2000 in support of her
application for grant of letters of administration does not show items of
furniture and
other households items forming part of the deceased’s estates.
It would appear that her removal of certain household items
in May 2000 from
the deceased’s residence in Honiara to Isabel must have triggered the
Applicant’s conduct as obviously
there is disagreement by the Applicant.
Therefore, there appears to be a need for a supplementary inventory to be
provided
by the Respondent of all the households items and the furniture
forming part of the deceased’s estate. I order that the Respondent
file in
Court by affidavit a supplementary inventory of all household items and
furniture forming part of the deceased’s
estate within 14 days from today.
Upon filing that affidavit of inventory, the Respondent will fix a date for
the hearing
of the Respondent’s Notice of Motion. The Respondent’s Notice is
adjourned to a date to be fixed. I order accordingly.
