Salau v Attorney General [2007] SBHC 22; HCSI-CC 202 of 2001 (8 May 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No: 202 of 2001

ALWYN SALAU

v

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Police and Director of Public Prosecution)

Date of Hearing: 1st December 2006
Date of Ruling: 8th May 2007

P. Watts for the Plaintiff

RULING on claim for consent order for judgment in SI$1.8m.

Brown, J: This claim by Alwyn Salau for SI$1.8m was originally commenced in 2001 by statement of claim. The grounds were that the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions were liable for compensatory damages for unjustifiable bad publicity (adverse publicity) given Tropic Architectural Services, (a company alleged to belong to the plaintiff), damage of name and character of the company and decline in the companies general operations, arising out of the suspension (and eventual termination) of an architectural contract over work to be done for Rennell and Bellona office and accommodation facilities for the Province. The pleading asserts that on or about April 1996 the projects were suspended by the SI Government because of a suspected financial scandal and the SI CID carried out enquiries in that regard.

The plaintiff claimed he was acquitted of false pretence and fraud charges "on or about 5 October 2000". Such criminal proceedings form no part of these civil proceedings and simply do not give rise to a claim for compensation.

On the pleadings as they then stood, the cause should have been struck out ex debito justitiae for no cause at law chargeable to the defendants was apparent.

But since then, an amended writ, to include Tropic Architectural services as a plaintiff was filed on the 7 August 2001. No other changes were made.

By consent order signed by the Registrar on the 24 July 2002, (the Attorney General for the SI Government and the Commissioner of Police, purporting jointly and severally admitting liability on their part for the loss of the plaintiff’s properties) a sum of $141,084.72 was ordered "as full and final settlement of the value of the plaintiff’s lost properties being one of the contentious issue in Civil Case No. 202 of 2001".

By certificate pursuant to section 23 of the Crown Proceedings Act (Cap. 8) (a document referring to a Deed of Settlement purporting to acknowledge the Government’s liability for SI$1.8m) this court was asked to sanction such settlement.

The proceedings should have been struck out long ago. The pleadings are frivolous and vexatious for that they disclose no cause of action. (As well the Deed purports to include other losses suffered since the institution of proceedings). The continuation of this cause is an abuse of process. The application to sanction is refused. The claim, in whatever form in this file, is struck out ex debito justitiae.

THE COURT