Inifiri v Muhibar (SI) Ltd [2023] SBHC 150; HCSI-CC 319 of 2023 (5 October 2023)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Inifiri v Muhibar (SI) Ltd
Citation:
Date of decision:	5 October 2023
Parties:	Junior Leonard Inifiri v Muhibar (SI) Limited
Date of hearing:	5 October 2023
Court file number(s):	319 of 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Kouhota; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	In view of this, I am satisfied that the claim is statue barred. For this and other reasons stated herein, the claim is dismissed with cost for the Defendant to be assessed if not agreed.
Representation:	Mr Gotoa for the Claimant Mr Rano W for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 319 of 2023

BETWEEN

JUNIOR LEONARD INIFIRI
Claimant

AND:

MUHIBAR (SI) LIMITED
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 14 September 2023
Date of Ruling: 5 October 2023

Mr Gotoa for the Claimant
Mr Rano W for the Defendant

RULING ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT A CLAIM

KOUHOTA J

The Claimant on 28^th June 2023 file a category (B) claim against the Defendants seeking the following orders;

1. An order that the defendant pay damages of $2,624,207.10 for breach of contract.
2. An interest thereon pursuant to rule 9.8 (a) and (b of the Solomon Islands Court Civil Procedure Rules 2007 or at such rate as the Court may determine since 2018 to the date of judgment.
3. Cost and incidentals to the action on indemnity basis’
4. Such further orders as the court sees fit.

The Claimant is a Solomon Islander. He is one of the Owners of a business called Maloku Timber Enterprise holder of felling licence A 1011129 covering Maloku land LR 695, Katova District, Isabel Province. Maloku Timber Enterprises is owned by the Claimant together with Grace Igosali, Rhianny Goboro and Kyline Dora each holding an equal shares of 25% each.

On 16^th July 2012, Maloku Timber Enterprises entered into a Management Technology agreement (MTA) with the Defendant. The Claimant is one of the Owners of Maloku Timber Enterprises and is suing the Defendant for breach of contract.

This is an application by the Defendant to dismiss the claim. The Defendant seek the following orders;

1. An order or declaration that the claimant lacks standing, or otherwise no authority to sue on behalf of Maloku Timber Enterprises.
2. An order that the claim or part of the claim is statue barred having commenced way beyond 6 years.
3. The claim is an abuse of process, cost therefore must be on indemnity basis in favour of the applicant.

The Defendant says that Maloku Enterprises is a business trading name for Maloku Timber Trading Holdings Ltd incorporated under the Companies Act 2009. The Claimant is one of the three shareholders of Maloku Enterprise but the Defendant says that there is no proof of authority for the Claimant to sue on behalf of a business entity. The Defendant also said that it is clear from the pleadings that the claims alleged outstanding payments were due to the company in 2013,2014,2015,2016, 2017 and 2018 under the MTA , so the claim is statue barred since it is more than 6 years since the alleged discrepancies were discovered. Defendant also says it is the Company that should receive 5% and not shareholders individually.

Counsel for the Defendant submit that the Claimant lack standing to bring the claim on behalf of a company as he has no authority to do that. I consider this is a crucial issue to claim.

Counsel for the Claimant submit that the Claimant has the standing and authority to sue the Defendant on behalf of Maloku Enterprises Ltd as there is no evidence to suggest the Claimant was refused by the Co-owners of Maloku Enterprises Ltd to sue the Defendant. He submit that the Co-owners of Maloku are in the process of making sworn statement in support of the Claimant to carry on the proceeding.

On the Material before the Court it is clear that the company had not authorised the Claimant to bring this action. The claim is in regard to money allegedly not paid to the Company, as such only the Company has the right to bring an action against the Defendant. No individual Shareholder can bring an action on behalf of a Company even if other Shareholders support his action. I can find no provisions of the Company Act, or the Company rules that allow a single Shareholder of a company to bring an action on behalf a company or for a benefit due to company to be paid to him as individual.

With regard to the issue of the claim been statue barred, the pleadings show that the Claimant claim alleged outstanding payments were due to the Company in 2013,2014,2015,2016, 2017 and 2018 under the MTA. The Defendant submit that the Claimant seem to have knowledge of the discrepancies since 2016 but Claimant only take steps to confirm this in 2023 and file this claim. In view of this, I am satisfied that the claim is statue barred. For this and other reasons stated herein, the claim is dismissed with cost for the Defendant to be assessed if not agreed.

THE COURT
Emmanuel Kouhota
Puisne Judge