West v Attorney General [2018] SBHC 28; HCSI-CC 296 of 2014 (5 March 2018)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 296 of 2014

BETWEEN: DONA HATAMALI WEST - First Claimant

AND: GEORGE WEST - Second Claimant

AND: ATTORNEY GENERAL - First Defendant
(Commissioner of Lands)

AND: ATTORNEY GENERAL - Second Defendant
(Registrar of Titles)

AND: ATTORNEY GENERAL - Third Defendant
(Premier of Western Province)

AND: RED DEVIL TRANSPORT LIMITED - Fourth Defendant

AND: JOSEPH DOUGLAS - Fifth Defendant

Date of Hearing: 22^nd February 2018.
Date of Ruling: 5^th March 2018.

Mrs. M. Bird for the First and Second Claimants.
Mrs. R. Soma for the First, Second and Third Defendants.
Mr. C. Hapa for the Fourth Defendant.
No Appearance for the Fifth Defendant.

KENIAPISIA; PJ:
RULING ON AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE – RULE 9.71 (A)

1. There is just too many issues and delays that this file has suffered resulting in protracted proceedings.
   
2. It all begun with the filing of a Judicial Review Claim in cc 335 of 2013, by Presley Watts Law Firm on the 9/09/2013 (“Watts claim”). Then in September 2014, the same claimants in Watts claim apply through Bird and Hiele Legal Services for extension of time under the Rules to file a Judicial Review Claim out of time in this case – cc 296 of 2014. The said application sat idle on file until 29/02/2016, when I sat to hear the application. It is public knowledge that High Court lacked judges and listing of even small applications take a long time in those years (2014 and 2015).
   
3. Counsels Hapa and Attorney General did not attend the hearing on 29/02/2016. I heard Counsel Bird and granted leave for her client to file Judicial Review Claim out of time. Order No. 2, I said claimants to file “amended claim” referring to the Watts claim. That reference was a mistake because, it is a different case number from this Civil Case 296 of 2014. Order should simply say “claim”. I now simply disregard the Watts claim. It is a different claim with a different case number. This claim all started new in September 2014, with an application for leave, filed by Counsel Bird.
   
4. After I granted leave, Counsel Bird filed a claim on 10/05/2016, some 2 months after my orders of 29/02/2016. Counsel Hapa denied receiving that claim. Counsel Bird did not produce statement of proof of service. Counsel Bird wrote for listing of her filed claim on 2/05/2017; with follow up calls. Registrar advising very late on 17/08/2017, that the file got missing.
   
5. Meanwhile Counsel Hapa applied to strike out this matter for lack of action by claimants to prosecute the case in September 2017. I listed hearing on 25/10/2017. Counsel Hapa came late without court attire at start of hearing. Counsel asked for time to get attired. I refused because my court must start on time and ordered costs for adjournment against Counsel Hapa personally. Another delay to this case in October 2017.
   
6. I see that failure or delay to progress this case is a combination of actions or inactions by Counsels and the court registry or the court due to lack of judges. I am not satisfied that claimants are to be blamed solely for failing to take steps to ensure the proceeding progresses. Court distinguished the facts and principles of law in the case authorities relied on by Counsel Hapa. All 5 cases are on files that were struck out by Registrar for non-progress under the Rules. And parties were applying to re-instate. Here one of the parties is applying to strike out this matter, saying the claimants failed to take steps to progress the matter quickly.
   
7. In the interest of justice, I decline the application to strike. I ordered that the claim filed by Bird in May 2016 shall be served on all defendants. Pleading to close, so we can go to chapter 15 conference. Parties meet their own costs.
   

THE COURT

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