Karihunua v Attorney General [2013] SBHC 64; HCSI-CC 78 of 2012 (11 June 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 78 of 2012

BETWEEN:

SAM KARIHUNUA
Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
First Defendant

AND:

HENRY PIKA
Second Defendant

Date of Judgment: 11 June 2013

Mr. Haurii for the Claimant
Mr. Firigeni for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for Summary Judgment filed on 4 September 2012 by the Claimant for the following relief: (a) Summary Judgment against the First Defendant pursuant to the claim filed by the Claimant in court and the defence filed by the First Defendant in court on 31 August 2012; (b) Summary judgment against the First Defendant for both value of a Vehicle No. AB6767, business lose and, interest of 5% claimed thereon by the Claimant; (c) summary judgment against the First Defendant to pay to the Claimant the total sum claimed and stated in the sworn statement in support of the application; such further orders as the court may deem meet.
   
2. The Claimant is the registered owner of vehicle No. AB6767. He bought the vehicle from Barnabas Henson on 30 October 2010. The vehicle was insured under third party insurance cover policy on 30 December 2010 in the name of the Claimant. On 15 November 2010, the First Defendant hired the vehicle for the use of the Second Defendant at the rate of $600.00 per day. An agreement to that effect was executed between the First Defendant and the Claimant on 24 January 2011. The Second Defendant was in possession and use of the vehicle until the vehicle was involved in an accident on the Tandai Highway on 12 February 2011.
   
3. The First payment due under the agreement was paid on cheque no. 221749 in the sum of $46,200.00 on 7 February 2011. The second payment was paid on or about March 2011 in the sum of $7,200.00. The Second Defendant was in possession and use of the vehicle from 15 November 2010 to 12 February 2011. The vehicle is still in the possession of the Defendants. A police report shows that the vehicle is not fit for public use on the public road.
   
4. The First Defendant who represents the Government still owes the Claimant payment under the hiring agreement. On 26 March 2012, the Claimant filed his claim against the First Defendant for the book value of the vehicle in the sum of $125,000.00 and the payments due under the agreement in the sum of $244,800.00. The Claimant sues the First Defendant for the sum of $369,800.00. The Defendants have filed defence to the claim.
   
5. The First Defendant represents the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Infrastructure and Development advised that the claim be settled by making payment to the Claimant. The court infers from this advice that there is no defence to the claim and that the debt will continue to increase due to interest charges. In the circumstances, the court will allow Claimant's application and grant the relief sought in it.
   

Orders: 1. Application allowed.
2. Relief sought in the application granted.
3. First Defendant to pay the Claimant's costs of this application.

Order accordingly.

THE COURT