Haomae v Electoral Commission [2011] SBHC 38; HCSI-CC 349 of 2010 (1 February 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Civil Jurisdiction)

Between:

William Nii Haomae
The Petitioner

And:

The Electoral Commission
The First Respondent

And:

Rick Houenipwela
The Second Respondent

Hearing: 1st February 2011
Ruling: 1st February 2011

A. Nori for the Petitioner (no attendance)
J. Muria (Jnr) for the First Respondent
A. Radclyffe for the Second Respondent

Palmer CJ.:

1. On 12 November 2010, the Court made a number of directions including the following:
   
   • (i) The Petitioner to file and serve witness sworn statements on or before 3rd December 2010;
     
   • (ii) The second respondent to file and serve witness sworn statements on or before 31st January 2011;
     
   • (iii) The matter is set down for pre-trial conference on 01st February 2011 ...."
     
2. The matter came before me for pre-trial conference today 1st February 2011 at 9.30 am. Neither Mr. Nori nor Mr. Haomae appeared at the hearing.
   
3. At the hearing Mr. Radclyffe for the second Respondent and supported by Mr. Muria (Jnr) for the first Respondent applied to the Court to have the petition struck out for failure to comply with the orders of the Court. Mr. Radclyffe pointed out that the Petitioner had had ample time to comply, that the petition is now some months old and his client is entitled to some finality in respect of the matter. He disclosed from the Bar table that he had received a request from Mr. Nori for an extension of time to file sworn statements to 15 December 2010 as his client was having difficulty getting in touch with his witnesses and arranging for them to have their statements sworn. Mr. Radclyffe told the Court that he responded the same day by email refusing the request. Mr. Radclyffe pointed out that no application for extension of time had also been filed.
   
4. I am satisfied Rule 9.13 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 gives discretion to the Court to dismiss a proceeding for want of prosecution where there had been non-compliance with orders of the court.
   
5. I am satisfied there has been non-compliance with the orders of the Court dated 12 November 2010 and there being no attendance by Counsel for the Petitioner, no explanation has been provided for the failure to comply. Accordingly I am satisfied the discretion of this Court should be exercised in favour of the Respondents to have the petition dismissed and I so order.
   

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

1. Dismiss the petition filed 16 September 2010 for want of prosecution; and
   
2. Costs of the Respondents to be paid by the Petitioner, to be taxed if not agreed.
   

The Court.