Levers Solomon Ltd v Attorney General [2008] SBHC 63; HSCI-CC 150 of 2008 (25 September 2008)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 150 of 2008

LEVERS SOLOMON LIMITED

V

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Representing the Commissioner of Lands and the Registrar of Title)

TIGI SEKELE
2nd Defendant.

Date of Hearing: 25 September 2008
Date of Ruling: 25 September 2008

A. Radclyffe for the Claimant
M. Woods for the 1st Defendant
D. Tigulu for the 2nd Defendant

RULING

Faukona, J.

An application by the 2nd Defendant pursuant to Rule 2.9 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007. The application was filed on 3rd September, 2008 and seeks to vary the Order made by this Court on 28 August 2008, and to allow 2nd Defendant to amend and file his defence within seven days.

The order on 28 August 2008 is as follows:

1. Second Defendant to provide within 7 days, and in default the second Defendant’s defence to be struck out.
   
2. The First Defendant to file and serve defence within 7 days of the Second Defendant providing further and better particulars referred to in paragraph 1.
   
3. Cost in the cause.
   

According to sworn statement of Clement Natei service of the Claim and Response form was effected on the Second Defendant on 30 May, 2008. Defence was filed on 24 June 2008. On 28th of August 2008, the case came before court and no one from Watts and Associates Law Firm present to represent the Second Defendant. On the same date the Orders being the subject of this application were made.

The Second Defendant was called and gave oral sworn evidence in Court. He was cross examined thereafter. What transpired from the date he received the claim and the date his defence was filed was explained. He also gave evidence as to his respond when he saw a column in the Solomon Star requiring him to provide further and better particulars within seven days or his defence be struck out.

From his oral evidence, it appears that on receipt of the claim on 30th May, 2008, until his Solicitor Watts and Associate file a defence on 24th June 2008, the Defendant seemed not to be worrying about what needs to be done. His name was mentioned in the claim as a defendant. He would have known that he must appear in Court to defend himself. I accepted his ignorance of the Court process. However, the claim should give him a hint that the land whereupon he builds his business will be question in court. And the papers had indicated his name. That should sound some alarm to act immediately. Consult a lawyer or get information as to what to do. He was merely relaxing and not worried. Eventually he engaged Mr. Kabolo who identified Watts and Associate a law firm to represent him. What occurred thereafter was a sad affair. From Second Defendants evidence, the law firm had not handled Second Defendant’s case professionally. Having paid $10,000.00 without any receipt being issued. And failed to appear on 28th August to represent the Second Defendant was an unacceptable professionalism by a legal practitioner. The Second Defendant only knew of a Court Order published in the Solomon Star requiring him to provide further and better particulars within 7 days or his defence be struck out. After checking with High Court Registry he found out that no one from Watts and Associate had represented him on 28 August 2008, the date the orders were made. He then engages Bridge lawyers.

I felt sympathetic for the Second Defendant. He lost a good amount of money and receives none or very little service from the legal firm he engaged. As a result the orders were not complied with.

I accepted he is ignorant of the court process but he need to act swiftly. Land is an important issue and it accommodates his business. That should give him some worry. Having said that I exercise discretion in this case and grant the Orders sought in the application:-

1. 2nd Defendant to file defence by 26/9/08.
   
2. 1st Defendant to file defence 14 days thereafter.
   
3. Cost of this hearing be paid to the Claimant by the Second Defendant
   

THE COURT