Bemobile (Solomon Islands) Ltd v Hakapaumona [2015] SBHC 120; HCSI-CC 32 of 2014 (27 May 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction
(Maina J)

Civil Case No. 32 of 2014

BETWEEN:

BEMOBILE (Solomon Islands) LIMITED
Applicant

AND:

RAYMOND HAKAPAUMOANA
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 27th May 2015
Date of Ruling: 27th May 2015

Ms. A. Willy for the Applicant
No Appearance for the Respondent

RULING

Maina J:

1. This is an application by the Claimants under Rule 9.17 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2007 for default judgment against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendants have failed to file defence.
2. A claim under Category A was filed on 10th February 2014 by Claimants seeking the following remedies:-

[1] General Damages

[2] Business losses

[3] Cost and interests

[4] Any other orders deems fit by the Court in the circumstances of the case.

3. The claim was served on the Defendant on 10th February 2014 by Humphrey Talu and Cliven Wale. Sworn statements in respect to the service of the claim on the Defendant was filed in the Court on 14th and 15th May 2014.

4. With the service of the claim, the Defendant did not file any response and no defence had ever been filed for the claim. And no reason is before the Court for not filing the defence by the Defendant.

5. Rule 9.17 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that if a Defendant does not file and serve either a response or a defence within the time required as provided in Rules 5.37 or 55 then the Claimant may file a sworn statement (a 'proof of service') that the claim and response form was served on the Defendant as required by Chapter 6. Claimant may apply to the Court for default judgment to be entered under this Chapter against the Defendant and may carry on the proceeding against any other party to the proceeding.

6. The granting of default judgments is basically discretionary. When considering whether or not to grant a default judgment, the Court is required to have regard to the nature of the claim. If the Court think that it is unjust to grant such order it may refused and list it down for trial. Among them is the claim which seeks for declaratory remedies.

7. With this case it is for general damages and according to the sworn statement of Humphrey Talu that when the Defendant was served with claim he resisted or challenged them by shouting to them that he will not settle the dispute unless the Defendant meet his demand for a year rental payment advance. He shouted at top of his voice to Humphrey Talu.

8. The claim was served on the Defendant by leaving them in front of him by Humphrey Talu and Cliven Wale.

9. I am satisfied that the claim was served on the Defendant on 10th February 2014 and the default judgment is granted to the Claimant.
The costs of this application are awarded against the 1st Defendants on indemnity basis to be taxed if not agreed.

THE COURT

.................................................................
Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge