Asheley v Kosol Corporation Ltd [2013] SBHC 162; HCSI CC 198 of 2013 (13 December 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS.
(Faukona J).

Civil Case No. 198 of 2013.

BETWEEN:

CHARLES KAUKUI ASHLEY and PHYLLIS
MAY ASHLEY.
Claimants

AND:

KOSOL CORPORATION LIMITED
Defendant.

Date of Hearing: 2nd December, 2013
Date of Ruling: 6th December, 2013

Mr C. Ashley for both Claimants and appear in person
Mr A. Radcliffe for the Defendant.

RULING:

Faukona J: This is an application for interlocutory order pursuant to Rules 2.9 and 7.5. An interlocutory order according to Rule 7.1 is an order that does not finally determine the rights, duties and obligations of the parties to a proceeding. And by Rule 7.2 (a) a party may apply for an interlocutory order at any stage, before during or after a proceeding.

2. This proceeding was commenced by an amended claim filed on 2nd July, 2013. It was a money claim. The Claimants claim the sum of $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 being the value of vehicle registration number AB5389. The Claimants further claim the sum of $74,000.00 being for unauthorized hiring of the vehicle for seventy four (74) days, from 18th April to 30th June, 2013. And further seek relief an amount of $500.00 per day commencing 1st July, 2013, until relief sought in paragraph (1) is finally paid.

3. With the money claim as basis for these proceedings, how would an interlocutory order affect the rights, duties or obligations of the parties, at interim before a final order, if and when the issue of ownership of the vehicle is determined at an early stage before trial of the facts. Is this application to determine the issue of ownership a preliminary matter, so that when it is determined it will affect the rights and the obligations of the parties? I must say no, it's not a preliminary matter. Preliminary matters upon successful determination give finality to the proceedings. As such, it does not include interlocutory orders, which are interim order in nature, and that further orders are required after substantive issue is heard at trial.

4. In this case, the Claimants wish to end this case earlier by tabling the issue of ownership to the vehicle before the Court. Upon relying on it urged the Court to observe Rules 1.3 to 1.5 the overriding objective of the Rules, which enable the Court to deal with cases justly with minimum delay and expenses. And the parties are legally obliged to assist the Court as required by R 1.8 to uphold the overriding objective.

5. Is the nature of this application really assisting the Court to achieve the overriding objectives of the Rules? The intention of the application is to end the case earlier. It does not collaborate in any way possible to an interlocutory order. Interlocutory orders are achieved from interlocutory applications, which are interim in nature, and they do not finally determine the rights and obligation of parties.

6. Mr Radcliffe submits that the ownership of the vehicle is the core issue of this case. From pleadings, it reflects so, and cannot be determined by an interlocutory application for an interlocutory order. It has to go to trial where evidence is tendered and witness be cross examined.

7. Obviously, the issue of ownership of the vehicle is a question of fact. It has to proceed through normal judicial processes. Of course, at the end of the day a determination will finalise the rights and obligation of the parties. Definitely, it will not accommodate any interim order. This application is filed on a misconceived basis.

Order:

1. Application is dismissed.

2. Cost is paid to the Defendant.

3. Case is adjourned for PTC on a date be fixed by the Registrar.

The Court.