Kebo v Bosa [2015] SBHC 106; HCSI-CC 119 of 2015 (15 December 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Faukona PJ)

Civil Case No. 119 of 2015

BETWEEN:

DAVID KEBO
Claimant
(Representing the land owning group in Parcel
Numbers: 192-030-2, 192-030-3 and 192-008-75)

AND:

LILLIE BOSA, SOLOMON VUREDIKA,
CATHERINE ALDRIN KOESI & NICOLAS BUTO
First Defendant

AND:

GUADALCANAL PLAINS PALM OIL LTD
(for purposes of interim injunction only)
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 20th October 2015
Date of Ruling: 15th December 2015

Mr. D. Nimepo for the Claimant
Mr. C. Solosaia for the Defendants

RULING ON INTER-PARTE HEARING

Faukona, PJ: A regime of Ex-parte orders were perfected on 2nd April 2015 on the application by the Claimant filed on 1st April 2015. Among the ex-parte orders was an order that the Claimant filed a Claim on 10th April 2015. The Claimant had responded by filing such claim on the date as required by the order.

2. On 30th April 2015 both Counsels appeared on a motion day before another brother Judge, Justice Maina. On that occasion Counsel for the Defendants admitted he had received the claim on that very day 30th April 2015.

3. On that occasion as well, Counsels conceded that the Registrar set a date for inter-parte hearing. It would have been well understood the process that follow suit after ex-parte proceedings is an inter-parte hearing. The Registrar then set 20th October 2015 as date for inter-parte hearing.

4. What had transpired on 20th October 2015 was that the Counsels were prepared to proceed with the inter-parte hearing. Noted as well was the fact that no defence and sworn statement was filed on behalf of the Defendants despite the claim was served on the Counsel for the Defendants on 30th April 2015.

5. During the course of the submissions the Counsel for the Defendants was referring to documents and giving evidence not realising that he did so from the bar table.

6. Counsel for the Claimant therefore interjected to such.

7. In a way he was right, and I cautioned the Counsel for the Defendants; he would have applied for adjournment as he was not prepared to proceed. He had not filed any defence and a sworn statement to support either.

8. However, Mr Solosaia insisted he carried on with his oral submissions. No objection from the Counsel for the Claimant and so he was allowed to continue.

9. It would appear proper for a senior Counsel as Mr Solosaia who would have expectedly known that he should not tender any evidence from the bar table at all. He has all the time after being served with the claim to respond and to file a sworn statement. He had failed to do so. In court, he was insisted that he accomplished his submissions. Having allowed him knowing that his submissions will not be accepted. As a result I have rejected his entire submissions and award costs against him personally. Evidence and materials he refers to are all evidence tendered at the bar table which must be rejected forthright.

10. In the light of such, the ex-parte orders perfected on 2nd April 2015 will continue remain inforce, and parties are hereby urged to comply with the direction orders issued on 30th October 2015.

Orders:

1. Orders of the Court issued on 30th October 2015 remain inforce as they are.
   
2. Costs incidental to this hearing be paid by the Counsel for the Defendant to the Claimant on indemnity basis.
   

The Court.