Eastern Marketing Distributors v Attorney General [2013] SBHC 81; HCSI-CC 186 of 2012 (11 July 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 186 of 2012

BETWEEN:

EASTERNS MARKETING DISTRIBUTORS
1st Claimant

AND:

ZERO WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED
2nd Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Aviation)
Defendant

DATE OF RULING: 11 July 2013

Mr. Watts for Claimants
Mr. Hanu for Defendant

RULING

1. Application. This is an application by the Defendant filed on 24 July 2012 for orders that: (1) The Claim be struck out on the basis that the proceedings are frivolous and vexatious; (2) The claim be struck out on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant; (3) Costs and (4) Further orders as the court sees fit to make.
   
2. Claim. The Claimants filed their action against the Defendant on 13 June 2012. The Claimants seek relief from the Defendant for breach of contracts signed between the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Communication and Aviation ('the Ministry") and themselves respectively.
   
3. First Claimant. The contract between the Ministry and the First Claimant was made 1 June 2010 and signed on 9 September 2010. The contract was for a period of 5 years renewable annually upon satisfactory work performance surrounding the perimeter fence of the Henderson International Airport in Honiara by the Claimant. The contract was terminated on 14 March 2012 by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry by letter of 30 March 2012.
   
4. Second Claimant. The contract between the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry and the Second Claimant was made on 1 June 2010 and signed on 7 September 2010 for a period of 2 years from 1 June 2010. After the end of that contract he entered into a new contract with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry on 12 March 2012 for a period of one year. However, this new contract was terminated on 30 March 2012. The Second Claimant lodged a complaint to the Attorney General about the termination of the contract. The Attorney General advised the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry to revoke the termination of the contract. The Permanent Secretary did not accept the advice and as a result, the Second Claimant filed his claim in court.
   
5. Court. The Claimants have filed their materials in support of their respective claims. The court read those materials, in particular the contracts signed between the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry and the Claimants. The view of this court after the perusal of the agreements is that both Claimants have arguable cases in respect of their agreements.
   
6. Decision. The claims against the Defendants are therefore not frivolous and vexatious and to be maintained until trial.
   

Order: (1) The Application by the Defendant referred to herein is dismissed.

(2) The Defendant is to pay the Claimants' costs of this application.

(3) This action is to be mentioned in court at 9.30 on 18 July 2013.

HIGH COURT