Aru v Szetu [2003] SBHC 64; HC-CC 234 of 2002 (28 January 2003)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 234 of 2002

SELWYN CRUZLYN ARU TRADING AS SEPATSIGNSTUDIO

–V-

JOHN SZETU

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)

Hearing: 28^th January 2003
Judgment: 28^th January 2003

D. Tigulu for the Plaintiff
Defendant in person

Palmer J.: The Plaintiff is a sign writer by profession trading as “Sepatsignstudio”. He claims he was engaged by the Defendant to carry out sign writing for him initially for $1,000-00 for a specified job. However on the day he was supposed to commence the job, he was asked to do it at a reduced rate of $700-00. Plaintiff says in his statement of claim that he agreed to do this only by adjusting his work to fit in with this reduced rate. The Defendant however then asked that he perform other tasks and which he agreed to pay on completion of the task and on production of his invoice. Plaintiff says he agreed and did the work requested. On completion, he submitted his charges for the sum of $13,550-00. Defendant refused to pay, resulting in this claim being commenced before this court.

Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim were filed on 11^th October 2002. They were served on the same day and the Writ duly endorsed by the Police Officer who effected service. Defendant has failed to file appearance or defence. On or about 4^th November 2002 Plaintiff filed Judgment In Default of Appearance. The Registrar of High Court however rejected this. Instead the application was converted to an application for damages to be assessed in chambers and a fresh Notice of Hearing fixed for 28^th January 2003. Plaintiff took extra precaution and had the Notice personally served on the Defendant. On said date at 9.30 a.m. Plaintiff appeared to have his application heard. The Defendant failed to appear at 9.30 a.m. and so court proceeded to hear the application in the absence of the Defendant. I was satisfied he had been served with the Notice of hearing.

Plaintiff relied on the affidavits of Selwyn Cruzlyn Aru and John Iarifu both filed on 18^th November 2002. Plaintiff also gave brief oral evidence in respect of the cost of paints that he had purchased for use at the site. The receipt for those payments was submitted in evidence as Exhibit 1.

At the close of Mr. Tigulu’s submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered the court. This was at about 9.50 a.m.; Defendant was late by twenty minutes. I asked the Defendant why he was late and he said that he thought the case was in courtroom 1. He told the court that he had been waiting in courtroom 1. I then stopped Mr. Tigulu from completing his submissions and advised parties that in view of the appearance of the Defendant in court that it was proposed in the interest of justice to give the Defendant opportunity to be heard. The only way this could be done properly was to direct that the proceedings be heard afresh. There being no objections from Mr. Tigulu, I announced that court would take a short adjournment of ten minutes and resume at 10.10 a.m. for rehearing of the application for assessment of damages. This was announced in pidgin to ensure that the Defendant understood what was said. I noted that he acknowledged what was said. Court was then adjourned. At exactly 10.10 a.m. I reconvened court. Unfortunately, the Defendant was nowhere to be seen. He was not present. On enquiring with Mr. Tigulu, he advised that he saw the Defendant making a phone call with his mobile phone and then walking out of court. I then asked the Plaintiff to check outside for the Defendant. On his return he was accompanied by John Iarifu (one of the deponents who had filed an affidavit in support of his case) and another supporter. He advised court that the Defendant was nowhere to be seen outside.

I proceeded to conclude the hearing of the case as I had already received the evidence and the submissions of the Plaintiff. It was simply unnecessary for me to have his evidence and submissions repeated.

After considering the evidence tendered in support of the Plaintiff’s case and hearing Mr. Tigulu for the Plaintiff, I was satisfied that it had been shown to my satisfaction on the balance of probabilities that there was indeed a variation of the original agreement for work requested by the Defendant to be performed. I am satisfied, there being no evidence to the contrary that the Defendant had agreed to pay the Plaintiff for the extra work that was requested to be done based on his normal rates. The Plaintiff has provided details of the breakdown of his charges as contained in Exhibit “SCA2” of the affidavit of Selwyn Cruzlyn Aru filed 18^th November 2002. Work had been done of which the Defendant was obliged to pay for. He had not done that.

I grant judgment for the sum of $13,550-00 less $1,000-00 paid, plus costs and interest at 5%.

Orders of the Court:

1. Enter judgment for the sum of $12,550-00 plus costs and interest at 5%.
   

THE COURT