Maepio v Petri [2019] SBHC 27; HCSI-CC 223 of 2018 (26 March 2019)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Maepio v Petri
Citation:
Date of decision:	26 March 2019
Parties:	Wayne Maepio and Tyson Ghera v Sute Petri, Attorney General
Date of hearing:	26 March 2019
Court file number(s):	CC 223 of 2018
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Keniapisia; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	This Petition is struck out with cost against petitioners
Representation:	Mr. D Nimepo for the Petitioners (No Appearance) Mr. C Hapa for the First Respondent No Appearance for the Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case Number 223 of 2019

WAYNE MAEPIO AND TYSON GHERA
Petitioners

V

SUTE PETRI
First Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Second Respondent
(Representing the Registration Officer, Revising Officer and Returning Officer, Ward 23 Marovo, Western Province Constituency)

Date of Hearing: 26 March 2019
Date of Ruling: 26 March 2019

Mr. D Nimepo for the Petitioners (No Appearance)
Mr. C Hapa for the First Respondent
No Appearance for the Second Respondent

RULING ON STRUCK OUT OF PETITION

1. A Provincial Assembly election petition was filed on 13/07/2018, with at least 3 supporting statements. At the first mention of the matter on 30/10/2018, Counsel Nimepo was absent without prior notice. This is rather unusual, because as lawyer for the Petitioners, he should be at the front proactively prosecuting his client’s interests. I noted counsel’s laxity with dismay. And so my Order No. 3 of Orders perfected 31/10/2018^[1], made it clear “Counsel Nimepo must show active leading role” Active leading role to have the matter ready for trial, by the end of 1^st quarter of 2019 (Order No. 1).
2. Then by Consent Order perfected on 2/11/2018^[2], Petitioners’ lawyer was to file and serve Trial Book by 14/12/2018 (Consent Order No. 4). On motions day of 22/01/2019, Counsel Nimepo, was again absent without prior notice. When the Petitioner in a case or his/her lawyer is absent at motions, it gives a concern to the court. Court cannot be certain, how to progress the matter quickly to trial, without the petitioners proactively pursuing their claim quickly to trial. By Order perfected on 22/01/2019^[3], Court made further orders that all trial preparations still outstanding from the 2/11/2018 consent order; must be completed by 26/03/2019 (Order No. 1). Matter will be mentioned today to monitor trial preparations. This is because the earlier order perfected 31/10/2018, made it plain clear that trial will be conducted in the first quarter of 2019. I came prepared to set a trial date today or to appoint a Pre-Trial Conference date. And if impossible, then I need to hear from the Petitioner. These expectations were not achieved because counsel Nimepo was, for the third time, absent without prior notice.
3. And so I struck out this petition under Order 3, of Orders perfected on 22/01/2019, for Mr. Nimepo’s non-attendance. Without Counsel’s presence, I am not sure, how much longer this case will drug on. The public is always blaming the court for delay in election petition cases. In heed to such calls, I had wanted to conduct trial quickly. I had made 3 orders to prepare matter for trial. Yet the petitioners’ counsel is not taking any proactive measures to have trial quickly. He is not attending court mentions or not even writing to the court of his absence and to inform court on where the case is progressing. This drastic action shows that election petitions, whether at Provincial or National levels are my priority. Lawyers need to take heed of this for any petitions under my watchful eyes, come 3^rd April 2019 National General Elections.
4. Accordingly, Court orders are:
   • 4.1 This petition is struck out with cost against the petitioners.

THE COURT
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

---

^[1] First Order – October 2018.
^[2] Second Order – November 2018.
^[3] Third Order – January 2019.