Qaqiri v Alai [2015] SBHC 126; HCSI-CC 412 of 2009 (10 August 2015)

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

Civil Case No. 412 of 2009

BETWEEN: LIVINGSTON QAQIRI - Claimants

AND: JOHN ALAI - Respondent



Date of Decision: 10 August 2015

Mr W. Rano for Claimant
No Appearance for Respondent

REASONS FOR RULING ON APPLICATION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Maina PJ:

The Claimant applies for summary judgment against the Defendant. The reason or ground is that the Defendant’s failure to appear in court and defend the claim against him.

Brief Background

This claim is for recovery rentals and expenses that began with claim filed on 23^rd October 2009 by Watts of Associates Legal Services. The claim was served on the Defendant but no defence was filed in the court. Rano and Company filed a notice of change of advocate on 26^th March 2010 with an application under Rule 2.9 and 7.5 of the CRC. A default judgment was obtained and perfected on 21^st October 2010 followed by filing of the enforcement orders.

On an application by Ms Bird for the Defendant on the 22^nd February 2012, the default judgment was set aside and process for defences, reply and normal requirements under the Rules to continue. Various orders to comply under the rules were also made by the court.

On 12^th August 2014 Ms Ramo L appeared for the Defendant and Pehu A for the Claimant when the judge referred the case to Registrar to fix a date for the trial of the case. The trial was fixed for 13^th March 2015 but on that date counsel Ramo did not appear for the case. Court was informed by the Claimant’s counsel that Counsel Ramo was at Auki. Matter was referred again to the Registrar to fix another or new trial date for the case.

A trial date was fixed for 10^th August 2015 and a notice to advice the parties and counsels were published on 4^th April 2015. The notice was served on the party’s counsels pigeon hole at High Court Registry office.

The Court

The brief history of the case seems to suggest that nothing useful was achieved since 2009.

Given the time already available to the Defendant from the service of the claim to him, the date when the default judgment was entered, the fact the case was listed for trail with no appearance of the counsel and the time give as noted from the above background to this last date cannot be explained and that logically indulge the Defendant’s chance for further adjournment or to fix another date for the trial of this case.

There is no explanation or reason to the court and that is also the basis of this application now with the court for summary judgment.

For this case it is not only the Defendant fails to act according to the rules or delay the process but the Defendant is not able or appears to defend the claim against him. I therefore grant the orders sought for summary judgment.

ORDER

The orders of the court in this application are as follows:-

1. Judgment is granted to the Claimant
   
2. Cost with indemnity to the First Defendant
   

THE COURT

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