Natowan v Attorney General [2003] SBHC 149; HCSI-CC 244 of 2002 (19 November 2003)

CC No 244 of 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No 244 of 2002

REUBEN NATOWAN

-v-

ATTORNEY GENERAL

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Brown PJ)
Civil Case No 244 of 2002

Date of Hearing: 19 November 2003
Date of Judgment: 19 November 2003

Bridge Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Attorney General for the Defendant

Practice and Procedure originating summons and statement of claim – cause of action need be apparent of the statement of claim typing need be legible, understandable and make sense – need foe name of registered practitioner to be endorse on the writ.

This summons and statement was not complete not complete for the reasons shown. The facts are in the judgments.

Held: 1. No cause of action on the face of the statement coupled with the manner in which the document had been filed calls for the courts intervention to prevent improper process being allowed to remain, when it is deficient in cause and unacceptable in form

2. The registered practitioner should have his name endorsed on the writ to enable the court to see compliance with the provisions of s.15 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act (cap 16).

Cited: Timo Mike -v- Allan Tavake anors CC134/03 unreported decision of Brown J dated 6 November 2003

Legislation: Legal Practitioners Act (cap 16) s.15 (1)

Summons in Tort

In this writ of summons filed on the October 2003 the plaintiff seeks general damages for trespass to property, special damages for negligence resulting in loss of property, loss of business revenue in the sum of $1,704,448 and damages for breach of Constitutional rights limited to $10,000.00. The sums claimed add to up to a considerable amount, even without the assessment of damages for trespass. A statement of claim filed with the summons attempts to plead why the plaintiff is entitled to such large sums from the Attorney-General.

From a perusal of the first page of the statement of claim, the plaintiff claims against the Crown “under s.15 (1) of the Crown Proceedings Act”. This section does not give a cause of action, rather provides that the Attorney-General is to be the appropriate named defendant where proceedings are sought to be brought against the Crown.

It is necessary, then to find on the face of the summons, a cause of action against the Crown (or State). The plaintiff says that he was a former public officer employed in the Ministry of Finance until the 24 February 1998 when he was dismissed. In May 1996 he had been suspended from his employment pending investigations into alleged acts of embezzlement of public funds. During the course of the investigations the defendant, through officers of the police, obtained search warrants enabling them to search and seize assets belonging to the plaintiff, in about May 1996. The plaintiff then pleaded that the effect of a Court of Appeal decision dated 24 April 1997 in the case of Maleli Zalao -v- Attorney General was that warrants were issued in breach of law and were therefore void. Further, the plaintiff says that in pursuance of the unlawful search warrants herein referred to, officers of the police searched the plaintiffs premises at i) East Kolaridge, Honiara, ii) Niu Mara on Gela, iii) Joteo Village, Santa Isabel Province (Isabel) iv) Sauna Village, Isabel, v) Kia Village, Isabel, vi) Sepi Village, Isabel. The police were alleged to have removed property which was listed, totaling in value claimed by the plaintiff, $280,464.00

The following page of the statement of claim is gobble-de-gook, for the word processor appears to have taken control, typing bits and pieces of words which make no sense. On the face, then of the material pleaded, there is no sufficient cause of action shown, for proceedings involving another person (Maleli Zalao) may raise rights in that person from the alleged unlawful warrants, but cannot avail this plaintiff. This plaintiff was not, on the face of the statement, a party to the proceedings and consequently cannot be said to fall within the res judicata.

If the cause of action is detention, then it may simply be pleaded. If theft, on the part of the police, then by virtue of the felony/tort rule, the matter should be referred to the police for investigation and prosecution on report (see Timo Mike -v- Allan Tavake, Thomas Tavake and Commissioner of Police CC134/03. Unreported judgment dated 6 November 2003).

But to include a claim for 1.7 million dollars against the State of the Solomon Islands for “loss of business revenue” does suggest the claim is somewhat spurious.

The originating process is rejected. What can be read, on its face, discloses no cause of action. The balance of the statement of claim is unreadable.

Notwithstanding the fact of the Memorandum of Appearance, I cannot accept that the process of the court should be allowed to progress when, as I say, the statement of claim suffers from such obvious and material defects.

The originating process is rejected, as being unacceptable in form. The plaintiff is not precluded from refiling proper process. The plaintiff may elect to file process in accordance with the rules or recover his filing fees. Where process is to be filed, the lawyer having carriage of the matter must endorse such particulars on the documents, so that the court can clearly see that the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act (cap 16) s.14 (1) have been complied with by endorsing the practitioners name on the writ of summons.

BROWN PJ