Williams v Sale [2007] SBHC 46; HCSI-CC 579 of 2004 (30 March 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No: 579 of 2004

LEONARD WILLIAMS

-v-

RAYNISH SALE AND OTHERS

(Mwanesalua, J.)

Hearing: 30 September 2005
Ruling: 30 March 2007

L. Williams for Plaintiff
R. Sale for RS Construction
C. Kirah in person (Spokes man)

RULING

(Mwanesalua, J). RS Construction was leasing from the plaintiff a 3 ton Isuzu pick-up truck under an agreement. The lease commenced on – 5 May 1999 for a 12 month period and provided for monthly lease payments of $3750. The vehicle was used for the 1st defendants business to carry material to the referral hospital.

Some $123,600 had been paid by the defendant and admitted – but the plaintiff claims a continuing balance calculated according to the monthly lease repayments.

The 1st defendant admits falling into arrears because the ethnic tension intervened and didn’t follow payment schedule, when it had paid $75,000 had a balance of $45,000 but were forced to return to their home village for the work at referral hospital had stopped. Since then other moneys have been paid.

The plaintiff claims the return of the vehicle for it was not sold to the defendant rather leased.

At expiry of lease period, the Plaintiff claims a debt under the lease of 25,416.67 for rental arrears plus surcharges for payment.

Without going further, it is clear that the ethnic tension was in effect a force majeure which would, if properly pleaded result in the postponement at the very least, of the obligation to maintain lease payments for the very good reason that the business community about Honiara was prevented from carrying on business.

Consequently the balance paid, admitted by the Plaintiff of $123,600 represents damages for breach in the circumstances of the time. The lease has expired and cannot be used to suggest the defendant is still obligated to make lease payments. The plaintiff is entitled to the truck or damages for its value for it has been unlawfully retained by the defendant beyond the lease period.
The truck is still with the defendant.. The Plaintiff has consequently lost the value of his truck. There is no point after this length of time, to look to the truck for by May 2000, the agreement came to an end, and the value of the truck has depreciated since then. In other words recovery of the truck is no recovery for the Plaintiff. He has lost the use of the truck since then. I will order the return of the truck.

Because of the ethnic tension and the effect it had an all businesses, at the time I order that the loss lie where it falls. The application for judgment is refused.

Orders of the Court:

1. I order the return of the 3 ton pick up truck to the Plaintiff.

2. The Application for judgment is refused.

Mwanesalua, J

THE COURT