Solomon Islands Water Authority v Siosi [2005] SBHC 42; HCSI-CC 008 of 2005 (4 March 2005)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 8 of 2005

SOLOMON ISLANDS WATER AUTHORITY

-v-

CHARLES SIOSI

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(MWANESALUA F, J.)

Date of Hearing: 24^th February 2005
Date of Judgment: 4^th March 2005

A. Radclyfe for the Plaintiff/Application
Defendant/Respondent in person

JUDGMENT

(Mwanesalua, J): This is an application by Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiff on 14^th February 2005. The Plaintiff seeks judgment on the grounds that the Defendant has failed to enter an appearance to the Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons or to file a defence to the Plaintiff’s statement of claim. The cause of action is in trespass and the relief claimed includes eviction and damages. The application would be under Order 13 rule 2 and order 29 rule 8 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules; the Plaintiff did not specify that in its motion.

The Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons and Statement Claim were filed on 11^th January 2005 and were served upon the Defendant on 12^th January 2205.

The Plaintiff’s Case

The Plaintiff is a statutory corporation and is the Owner of the fixed term estate in Parcel No. 191-051-103 at Tuvarughu, Honiara (“the property”) being the Pump Station House.

The Defendant was a former employee of the Plaintiff and was entitled to reside in property owned by the Plaintiff with his family as a term and condition of his employment. During the ethnic tension the Defendant occupied the property without the consent of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff made the Defendant redundant on or about 19^th October 2001. The Defendant’s rights to reside in property owned by the Plaintiff ceased and by notice in writing dated 7^th May 2002 the Plaintiff gave the Defendant until 15^th May 2002 to vacate the property.

Despite several further notices to vacate the property, the Defendant and his family have wrongfully remained in occupation and have refused to vacate the property. This has prevented the Plaintiff from using the property to accommodate its pump operator.

The Defendant has used part of the property to raise and feed pigs and as a result has caused damage to the property and pollution of the water supply system.

The Defendant’s Case

The Defendant’s case is that he occupied the property for three reasons. The reasons are: First, he claimed that the Plaintiff had underpaid his salary. Second, he claimed that the Plaintiff had underpaid his redundancy payment. And third, he claimed that the Plaintiff had terminated him from his job under threat. He gave no further details about these claims.

The Defendant applied for adjournment to the hearing of the Notice of Motion. Mr. Radclyffe for the Plaintiff opposed the application because the Defendant had been served with the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim since 12^th January 2005. The Defendant already had sufficient time to prepare his case. I allowed Mr. Radclyffe to proceed with his application.

Decision of the Court.

The Defendant ceased being an employee of the Plaintiff on or about 19^th October 2001. His rights to occupy the property ceased on 15^th May 2002. He has been occupying the property illegally since 15^th May 2002. He has deprived the Plaintiff’ from using the property to accommodate its pump operator. The Defendant occupied the property because he claimed that the Plaintiff has made shortfalls in his salary and redundancy payments. These claims do not constitute rights that would entitle a person to occupy the property. A person can only occupy the property if he is an employee of the Plaintiff. The Defendant has ceased to be such a person on or about 19^th October 2001, when he was made redundant.

On 3 February 2005, Paul Takiita of the Public Solicitor’s Office told Mr. Radclyffe in a letter that the Defendant had made an appointment to see a Solicitor about his case on 9^th March 2005. Mr. Radclyffe replied the letter on the same day, pointing out that Defendant had been served with the Writ of Summons on 12^th January 2005, and that no appearance or defence have so far been entered. This position has remained the same to date.

There was delay in filing the appearance and the defence in this is action. I will grant the application by the Plaintiff. The Defendant will pay the Plaintiff’s costs of this application. The orders of the Court are -

1. the Defendant his relatives servants and agents vacate Parcel No. 191-051-103 at Tuvarughu, Honiara within 7 days from the date hereof and not re-enter it;

2. the Defendant pay damages for trespass or mesne profits to be assessed on a date to be fixed by the Registrar provided that if the Defendant compiles with paragraph 1 above the Plaintiff will not proceed with the application for damages;

3. the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs to be taxed if not agreed.

F. Mwanesalua, J.
Puisne Judge