Saniel v Fataleka Development Association [2014] SBHC 51; HCSI-CC 235 of 2012 (13 May 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction

BETWEEN:

JACK SANIEL
Claimant

And:

FATALEKA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
1st Defendant

AND:

NEW VENTURE LIMITED
2nd Defendant

Mr. Iroga for the Claimant.
No appearance for the 1st and 2nd defendants.

Date of hearing: 13 May 2014.
Date of Judgment: 13 May 2014.

RULING
Apaniai, PJ:

1. This is an application filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants ("applicants") on 14 August 2012 seeking to strike out the claimant's claim on the grounds that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is frivolous and vexatious.
   
2. The application was fixed for hearing today, however, the applicants have failed to appear either in person or by counsel.
   
3. Mr. Iroga inform me from the bar table that he was informed by Global Lawyers in the morning before coming to court that Mr. Makario Tagini who represents the defendants in the matter is currently in Auki, Malaita Province, and could not attend the hearing.
   
4. Understandably, Mr. Iroga was not happy that the matter would be adjourned further and so he applied that the application be dismissed with costs.
   
5. I agree with Mr. Iroga and gave ex tempore ruling dismissing the application pursuant to Rule 9.72 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 ("Rules"). The reasons for dismissing the applications are set out below.
   
6. The application was filed in August 2012. The defendants have filed a conditional appearance on 3 August 2012. They have not yet filed any defence.
   
7. A perusal of the court file reveals that, since filing the application, the matter has been adjourned twelve times. These adjournments were made on various dates between 23 August 2012 and 4 July 2013 for various reasons including giving the parties chances to negotiate settlement. On 4 July 2013, a request was made for the application to be listed for hearing. Subsequently, the application was listed for hearing this morning. Appropriate notice has been issued to the parties and their counsel.
   
8. Again the applicants failed to appear either in person or by counsel. They have not informed the court of their absence or of the reasons for their absence.
   
9. The application is that of the applicants. It is an application to terminate the claim without trial. The progress of the case depends on the application being determined and the court has a duty to ensure that the case proceeds with minimum delay and expense[1].
   
10. In this case, the delay is unacceptable. It is now approximately 21 months since the application was filed. The defendants have not yet filed any defence. It is vital that they do so immediately so as to progress the case further. For that to happen, this application must get out of the way. In that regard, I must strike out the application under Rule 9.72(b) of the Rules.
    
11. Orders of the court are:-
    

[1] The application filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants on 14 August 2012 to strike out the claim is dismissed.

[2] The 1st and 2nd defendants to pay the claimant's costs on standard basis.

THE COURT

_________________________
James Apaniai
Puisne Judge.

---

^[1] Rule 1.3, Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.