Boke v Simukali [2007] SBHC 31; HCSI-CC 558 of 2005 (16 May 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 558 of 2005

SANTUS BOKE & RANADI AUTO SPARES LIMITED

V

MATHIAS SIMUKALI

Date of Hearing: 16th May 2007
Date of Ruling: 16th May 2007

Pacific Lawyers for the Plaintiffs
Mr. Charles Ashley for the Defendant

RULING on appeal against the Registrar’s refusal to allow a defence although out of time.

Brown J: The notice of appeal alleges that the Registrar erred in the exercise of his discretion for that he failed to have regard to oral submissions made by counsel for the applicant. I have read the reasons given by the Registrar. At pages 6, 7 & 8 of those reasons the Registrar addresses a document entitled "statement of claim" (MS2) to the affidavit of the applicant.

It is clear the Registrar has carefully considered the issues raised by that document which he has treated as a draft defence. I see no error in this course in the exercise of his discretion. The appeal before me does not point to any particular error in the Registrars findings.

Consequently the Registrar’s discretion has not been shown to have miscarried.

The appeal ground that the Registrar has failed to take account of the argument perhaps is no ground. The material facts on which the appellant must rely are those set out in his draft pleading – statement of claim – and the Registrar has addressed those facts.

It is not permissible to lead evidence from the bar table. There is a suggestion that the Registrar has fallen into error because he has not taken account of such evidence or the argument based on that. That is no argument and plainly wrong in law, if that be Mr. Ashley’s contention.

Again if it is just a matter on balance and the Registrar has failed to accede to Mr. Ashley’s argument on his clients behalf, such failure cannot be the ground for an appeal on its own.

There is nothing on the face of the Registrars reasons which give me cause, to reconsider his ruling. His exercise of discretions has not been shown to have miscarried.

The appeal is struck out. The appellant shall pay the respondents costs.

THE COURT