HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

ALICK SOGATI

-v-

ATTORNEY-GENERAL, BUKESE DEVELOPMENT, EAGON RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND PREMIER OF CHOISEUL PROVINCE

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Brown, P.J)

Civil Case No. 112 of 2006

Date of Hearing: 6th July 2006
Date of Ruling: 6th July 2006

No appearance of Plaintiff
Mr. Chris Hapa for the 3rd Defendant
Mr. Caesar for Attorney-General

RULING

To Strike out Originating Motion Seeking Orders in the Nature of Certiorari

Brown J: This application by Alick Sogati has no originating process. It appears to have reached an impasse for there is no summons setting out the basis of the plaintiffs claim to relief. There is however a motion by the applicant/plaintiff for an order for certiorari which should be returnable today but the applicant/plaintiff has not appeared to argue the motion. Certainly no basis of claim appears from the ex parte summons filed on the 23 March 2006 pursuant to which an interim injunction appears to have issued. Clearly the 3rd respondent’s motion to strike the proceedings because of the absence of any statement of claim or pleaded cause of action (beyond a claim for the injunction and leave for certiorari in the ex parte summons) should be heard before any further consideration is given to the applicant/plaintiffs motion for certiorari. But Mr. Caesar says he has instructions to "go along with the motion" which presupposes, I suggest the Commissioner of Forest accepts that his licence given, is void. But is that so? Mr. Caesar has no instructions from the Premier of Choiseul but I would expect the Attorney-General would seek and obtain his instructions before I could be expected to accede to Mr. Caesar’s apparent concession; at least on the Commissioners point, that his licence granted is void.

Mr. Hapa wants the claim for certiorari dismissed. It is a proper application in the circumstances. But with Mr. Casesars curious concession and in the absence of proper instructions from the Premier of the Province I am not willing to dismiss the application at this stage despite the non appearance of the plaintiff.

Orders

I direct the Registrar to advise the applicant/plaintiff that the 3rd respondents motion to strike will be listed for hearing on Wednesday 19th July at 2:00pm. The motion seeking an order of certiorari will be stood over to that day. The Respondents will have their costs of today from the applicant/plaintiff. The 3rd respondent’s ex parte summons filed 11 April will not be dealt with ex-parte but will be treated as the motion to strike the summons of the applicant/plaintiff currently before the court. I direct service of that summons of the 3rd respondent if not already done so. (The 3rd respondent summons does not claim to rely on any affidavit filed in support so the argument will be restricted to the point of law raised by the 3rd respondents in paragraph 1 (a) to (e) of its summons). No further affidavit material shall be filed without the leave of the court.

THE COURT