Wairu v Adi [2016] SBHC 95; HCSI-CC 66 of 2016 (28 June 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No: 66 of 2016

BETWEEN:
MORGAN WAIRU
Claimant

AND:
TIMOTHY ADI
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 7^th June 2016.
Date of Ruling: 28^th June 2016.

Ms. L. Ramo for the Claimant.
Mr. R. Firigeni for the Defendant.

KENIAPISIA; PJ:

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1. Claimant is applying for default judgment on his Category C claim filed 26/2/2016. The application for default judgment was filed 15/4/2016. There is a statement on proof of service. The prime relief sought in the claim is to evict the defendant, his family, servants, agents and relatives from Parcel Number 191 – 018 – 240.
   
2. There is no response or defence on file. Counsel Firigeni for the defendant submitted that, having received instructions, he is of the opinion, that his client does not have a viable defence. Having said that in introduction, Mr. Firigeni, then went at great length, to make submissions on his client’s instructions. Having listened to what Mr. Firigeni said from the bar table, it appears that his client does have a viable defence. Briefly his client’s case is for equitable interests in PN. 191 -018 -240. That there were communications between the Commissioner of Lands (COL) and the defendant in 1998, 2008 and 2013. On the basis of these communications, his client has moved onto the said land. On the basis of these communications, COL promised his client, that the COL will talk with the claimant about possible sub-division. Defendants are still waiting on the COL’s promise.
   
3. The problem with those good submissions by Mr. Firigeni is that, they hang in the air, because there is no evidence before me. Put another way, Mr. Firigeni should have filed a “draft defence” and a “sworn statement” to support his oral submissions from the bar table.
   
4. Failing that, Mr. Firigeni’s good submissions are not supported by evidence and are simply ignored.
   
5. I should grant the application for default judgment as sought by the claimant. There is no defence and the time to file a defence under the Rule has lapsed. It is over two months since the claim was served on the defendant.
   
6. The defendant can apply to set aside this default judgment. In doing that, he will need to explain the reasons for the delay in filing defence and to demonstrate that he has an arguable defence by disclosing a draft defence. And that there will be no prejudice to the claimant by setting aside.
   
7. Court orders are:
   
   • 7.1 Application for default judgment filed 15/4/2016 granted.
     
   • 7.2 Parties to meet their own costs.
     

THE COURT

-----------------------------
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE