Omex Ltd v Zodi Forest Enterprise [2013] SBHC 89; HCSI-CC 171 of 2010 (24 July 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 171 of 2010

BETWEEN:

OMEX LIMITED
Claimant

AND:

ZODI FOREST ENTERPRISE
First Defendant

AND:

CHIEF BEN KONORO, JOHN PAZABOSE, LEUAN ZOLEVEKE, ALLAN QALOKAMAKE, ROY PAQO-KANA AND ANTHONY PITAMAMA
(Representing Zodi Customary Landowners)
Second Defendants

DATE OF RULING: 24 July 2013

Mr. Afeau for Claimant
Ms Tongarutu for First Defendant
Mr. Pitakaka for Second Defendants

RULING

1. This is an application filed by the Defendants for the following relief: (1) Leave to abridge time for filing application; (2) Orders to set aside the default judgment made on 28 September 2010 or in the alternative, an order to vary the orders made on 28 September 2010; (3) stay the enforcement orders made on 11 May 2011; (4) costs and (5) Any other orders the court deems fit to make.
   
2. The Claimant is a company incorporated in Solomon Islands and carries on business in the logging industry.
   
3. The Fist Defendant is a business name with a registration No. BN 81 of 2006, in the names of Nason Pazabeto, Anthony Pitamama, Cromwell Qopoto, Moses Biliki, Ben Konoro and Johnson Bate on behalf of the Zodi Tribe.
   
4. The Second Defendants are representatives and trustees of Zodi Customary Land. They are sued as representatives and trustees of Zodi Land as well as being sued personally and individually.
   
5. The First Defendants are sued jointly and severally with the Second Defendants.
   
6. The Claimant filed its claim against the Defendants on 2 May 2010 for recovery of the sum of $398,890.60; interest and costs.
   
7. The First Defendant filed its defence on 4 June 2010. On the other hand, the Second Defendants did not file defence. As a result default judgment was entered against both Defendants in the sum of $398,89.60, interest and costs, although the First Defendant filed defence and denied liability for the sum of $160,244.00 in its defence.
   
8. The Second Defendants, through their Solicitor, admitted that there would be no defence to the sum of $135,564.70. He also said that the balance of the debt due to the Claimant could be negotiated, but if that fails, the remaining balance should then be determined in a trial.
   
9. There is evidence that a lot of payments were made by the Claimants to the Defendants in this case. It would be necessary to identify the persons who benefited from the funds and what the funds were used for by the recipients. It is therefore the view of this court that it would be at trial as well that it would be possible to establish those who actually loaned and benefit from the other funds.
   
10. In the circumstances, the court will grant the orders sought in the application except alternative order sought in order 2.
    

THE COURT