Tolae v Willliams [2007] SBHC 108; HCSI-CC 192 of 2007 (7 September 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 192 of 2007

STANLEY TOLAE
AND ANDY VOLAVIRONDO
(Representing Cruz Marketing Employees

-v-

LEO JOHN WILLIAMS

Date of Hearing: 7 September 2007
Date of Ruling: 7 September 2007

D. Marahare for the Plaintiff
M. Tagini for the Defendant

RULING on application to strike out for that the claim is frivolous and vexatious and discloses no cause of action.

REASONS

Brown, J: This application to strike is made on 3 basis.

The first is that the plaintiff’s were employees of Cruz Marketing and as a result of the claimed acts of the defendant as the Managing Director of the company, they have lost their employment with the company. The acts complained of then would appear to be by the agent so that the company is vicariously liable for those acts. As Mr. Tagini says, the company is an entity in its own right and may sue and be sued in its corporate name. Not only is it a common law principle but that is the statutory principle underlying the Companies Act.

However, Mr. Marahare says that is not the real basis of the claim rather it is the link between the actions of the defendant and the loss to the company which underlying the plaintiff claim to damages for slander.

The damage to the financial situation of the company by the action of Mr. Williams is a matter for the company. In effect the plaintiff’s seek to allege the slander, on the strength of the loss and damage suffered by the company as evidenced by their loss of employment.

This claim, to slander then, is the second issue to which Mr. Tagini draws the courts attention. These are no particulars of the acts of slander affecting either Stanley Tolae and Andy Volavirondo or any other persons (not named) whom the plaintiff’s purport to represent. The pleadings are wholly deficient if the claim is one for slander by the individual and again lack sufficiency if the slander is to be alleged by the company Cruz Marketing.

The third issue is that loss of employment by the two plaintiff’s, it seems. The statement of claim does not particularise any breach as such of the actual or implied employment contract so as to enable the defendant to enter a defence. He was not their employer.

Mr. Tagini says the claim should be struck for it is frivolous and vexatious.

Mr. Marahare says that at trial he will bring evidence to show a claim in terms of a convention a Racial Discrimination Convention but this is not pleaded.

For the reasons I have given, there is no claim against the defendants in so far as the loss of employment is concerned.

Slanders have not been pleaded.

The statement is struck out as vexatious.

Costs shall be costs in the cause payable by the plaintiff.

THE COURT