Ramoli v Electoral Commission [2024] SBHC 101; HCSI-CC 210 of 2024 (1 August 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Ramoli v Electoral Commission
Citation:
Date of decision:	1 August 2024
Parties:	Fred Ramoli, Clement Kobaa Oikali and Sam Alasia Lidimani v Electoral Commission, Alfred JM Tuasulia
Date of hearing:	1 August 2024
Court file number(s):	210 of 2024
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Aulanga; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The application to strike out the joint election petition filed on 30th May 2024 is granted. 2. Consequently, it is struck out accordingly on the basis that it was not signed by all the Petitioners when it was presented and filed at the High Court. 3. The application for leave to amend the petition is refused forthwith. 4. Costs of this hearing to be paid by the Petitioners to the Second Respondent on standard basis. 5. For formality purposes, I direct that a certificate confirming the validity of the election of the Second Respondent, Hon. Alfred JM Tuasulia, duly elected candidate for the West Kwara’ae Constituency in Malaita Province is to be issued to (i) the Governor General, (ii) the Speaker of the National Parliament and (iii) the Electoral Commission.
Representation:	Mr J Iniga for the Petitioner No Appearance for the First Respondent Mr B Titiulu for the Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Electoral Act 2018 (as amended) S 108 (3), S 111 (3) Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 r 6 (4), r 10 (1), r33 (1),
Cases cited:	Bae v Ramofafia [2019] SBHC 89, Aqarao v Philip [2020] SBHC 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 210 of 2024

BETWEEN

FRED RAMOLI, CLEMENT KOBAÁ OIKALI AND SAM ALASIA
LIDIMANI
Petitioners

AND:

ELECTORAL COMMISSION
First Respondent

AND:

ALFRED JM TUASULIA
Second Respondent

Date of Hearing: 1 August 2024
Date of Ruling: 1 August 2024

Mr J Iniga for the Petitioner
No Appearance for the First Respondent
Mr B Titiulu for the Second Respondent

RULING

AULANGA PJ:

1. Following the National General Election on 17^th April 2024, the Second Respondent polled 5,621 votes and the Petitioners polled 1,499, 525 and 191 votes respectively. There was a significant margin of votes casted for the Second Respondent compared to the Petitioners. The Second Respondent was declared the winning candidate and became the member of the National Parliament for West Kwaraáe Constituency in Malaita Province.
2. As expected in Solomon Islands, complaints regarding the conduct of the election and the integrity of the electoral voting system mounted after the result. This led to the Petitioners filing the Election Petition (“EP”) on 30^th May 2024. The EP was filed on time and has satisfied section 108 (3) of the Electoral Act 2018 (as amended). It was a joint EP. However, it was only signed by Clement Koba’a Oikali and Sam Alasia. The third petitioner, Fred Ramoli, did not sign the EP. The EP therefore was not signed by all the three Petitioners.
3. Besides the EP, the Petitioners also filed Recognisance (Form 6) and Notice of Agent (Form 9) on 30^th May 2024, both documents only signed by Sam Alasia and not the other two Petitioners despite it was a joint petition case. Believing that the EP and the other supporting documents were valid, the Petitioners then filed sworn statements in support of the petition.
4. On 5^th July 2024, the Second Respondent filed an application to strike out the joint EP on two principal grounds. First; the EP was not signed by all three Petitioners at the time it was filed at the High Court. This offends rule 6 (4) of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 that requires the EP, in the case of joint petition, to be signed by all the three petitioning individuals before it can be considered a valid EP. That was a fatal error that cannot be cured by any amendment and must render the EP null and void. Second; the Recognisance (Form 6) document was not signed by all the Petitioners as well. It was only signed by one of them, namely Sam Alasia. Since it was a joint petition, rule 10 (1) – (4) of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 require all the Petitioners to give security for payment of costs of the petition. By having Sam Alasia alone signing the recognisance when in fact it requires all the Petitioners to sign and give security of costs before a Commissioner of Oaths, that amounted to a false representation to the Court. Based on these grounds, the EP should be struck out entirely.
5. The Petitioners applied for the Court to grant leave to amend the original EP. They relied on rule 33 (1) of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019. The intention of the application is that, once leave is granted, all the Petitioners should able to sign the EP and have it refiled at the High Court for continuity of the proceeding.
6. Having heard the contrary arguments, the only question or issue for me to consider is whether the election petition filed on 30^th May 2024 was valid and can be amended by leave.

Discussion

7. The Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 was made pursuant to section 111 (3) of the Electoral Act 2018 to provide clear guidelines for the presentation and management of election petition cases at the High Court. This devolution of power is not to usurp but to support the work of the legislature in dealing with election petition matters.
8. It is not disputed that this is a joint petition matter filed against the two Respondents. The Petitioners argue that the EP can be amended by relying on rule 33 (1) of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 and election petition decided High Court cases of Bae v Ramofafia [2019] SBHC 89 and Aqarao v Philip [2020] SBHC 22. I disagree with this submission. The nature of Bae v Ramofafia case is clear that the issue of the signing of the EP was only detected at the trial proper. It would have been dealt with differently at an interlocutory application if it was raised earlier before commencement of the trial. The case of Aqarao v Philip is also different to the present case. It is not clear whether the Aqarao case has a same issue of incomplete signing of the petition at the time of filing at the High Court. But what was obvious from that case was the Court has struck out some of the grounds due to bad pleadings and not the issue of incomplete signing of the petition.

Whether the election petition is valid due to incomplete signing by all petitioners at the time of filing

9. In this case, rule 6 (4) of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 is clear that the “petition shall be signed by all the petitioners”. This means that in a case of joint election petition, it must be signed by all the petitioners before it is presented for filing at the High Court. Anything sort of will render it a defective and an invalid petition for the purpose of hearing of the election petition case. As such, if the document is invalid by reason of noncompliance with rule 6 (4) of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019, this Court is precluded from giving leave for any amendment of the petition. The power to make amendment to a petition under rule 33 (1) Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 is only exercisable to a valid petition. It cannot be exercised to a defective petition that is null and void at the time of filing at the High Court. As well stated by the Court in Bae v Ramofafia [2019] SBHC 89, [at page 6] to support this finding:
   • “I am of the view that the petitioner’s failure to personally sign the petition as a matter of law is fatal to the petition.”
10. Based on those findings, I accordingly refused the application for leave to amend the original petition. Instead, I find that the election petition incompletely signed by all the Petitioners and filed at the High Court on 30^th May 2024 has suffered a fatal defect. Because of this defectiveness, it is null and void from its inception at the filing, so much so that no leave of the Court can be able to have it cured or amended as sought. The need for strict compliance to the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 and not to rush to the Court with a partial or incomplete signed election petition proceeding must be adhered to by the Petitioners.
11. As a result of my finding, I do not wish to deal with the irregularity or incomplete signing of the Recognisance Form 6 document, a point raised by the Second Respondent. I am of the view that my findings in relation to the validity of the EP document is sufficient to dispose this matter. Even if I find otherwise, which I do not, it is my view that this issue is subservient to my earlier findings.
12. The Second Respondent’s application to strike out the joint election petition filed on 30^th May 2024 is granted. Consequently, it is struck out accordingly. It is struck out as a result of not being signed by all the Petitioners when it was presented and filed at the High Court. The application for leave to amend the petition is refused forthwith. I order cost of this hearing to be paid by the Petitioners to the Second Respondent on standard basis.
13. For formality purposes, I direct that a certificate confirming the validity of the election of the Second Respondent, Hon. Alfred JM Tuasulia, duly elected candidate for the West Kwara’ae Constituency is to be issued to (i) the Governor General, (ii) the Speaker of the National Parliament and (iii) the Electoral Commission.

Orders of the Court

1. The application to strike out the joint election petition filed on 30^th May 2024 is granted.
2. Consequently, it is struck out accordingly on the basis that it was not signed by all the Petitioners when it was presented and filed at the High Court.
3. The application for leave to amend the petition is refused forthwith.
4. Costs of this hearing to be paid by the Petitioners to the Second Respondent on standard basis.
5. For formality purposes, I direct that a certificate confirming the validity of the election of the Second Respondent, Hon. Alfred JM Tuasulia, duly elected candidate for the West Kwara’ae Constituency in Malaita Province is to be issued to (i) the Governor General, (ii) the Speaker of the National Parliament and (iii) the Electoral Commission.

THE COURT
Augustine Sylver Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE