PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Solomon Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Solomon Islands >> 2024 >> [2024] SBHC 102

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Quity v Majala [2024] SBHC 102; HCSI-CC 443 of 2023 (19 August 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS


Case name:
Quity v Majala


Citation:



Date of decision:
19 August 2024


Parties:
LanFrank Quity, Erick Bako Junior, Ellison Riugita and Frank Welchman v Noel Majala, Mathew Friro, Issac Legu, Johnson Rohi Reubenson Rava & Fred Kolotu, Valepelo Development Company Limited


Date of hearing:
6 August 2024


Court file number(s):
443 of 2023


Jurisdiction:
Civil


Place of delivery:



Judge(s):
Talasasa; PJ


On appeal from:



Order:
1. The application for non-compliance of unless order is refused;
2. Costs in the Cause


Representation:
Iroga J for the Claimant
Ipo M for the First and Second Defendant


Catchwords:
Unless Order-non-compliance-strike out of pleading or claim-discretion of Judge


Words and phrases:



Legislation cited:
Solomon Islands Court (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r 1.14, 23.4, 9.14


Cases cited:
Solomon Security Service Ltd v AIPF (SI) Ltd [2022] SBCA 25, Mega Corporation Ltd v Lotinta [2003] SBCA 8 Samuels v Linzi Dresses [1979] EWCA Civil 1128-3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION


Civil Case No. 443 of 2023


BETWEEN


LANDFRANK QUITY, ERICK BAKO JUNIOR, ELLISON RIUGITA AND FRANK WELCHMAN
Claimants


AND:


NOEL MAJALA, MATHEW FRIRO, ISSAC LEGU, JOHNSON ROHI REUBENSON RAVA & FRED KOLOTU
First Defendant


AND:


VALEPELO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Second Defendant


Date of Hearing: 6 August 2024
Date of Ruling: 19 August 2024


Iroga J for the Claimant
Ipo M for the First and Second Defendant

RULING NON-COMPLIANCE OF UNLESS ORDER

Introduction

  1. On 29 April 2024, the Claimants were directed to file and serve their reply to the defence by 13 May 2024. In addition to that, other directions effectively to progress the matter to trial were also made.
  2. These Directions were perfected, signed and sealed on 6 May 2024.
  3. The matter was then adjourned for further Mention to Monday 10 June 2024 at 9:30am.

Chronology of events

10 June 2024 to 25 June 2024
  1. On Monday 10 June 2024 when the matter was called for Mention there was no appearance by Counsel for the Claimants. No explanation for non-appearance was given.
  2. Counsel Ipo for the Defendants raised that his clients have expressed grave concerns about the delay in progressing this matter citing the timber right process has been complied with and there shouldn’t be any further delay with this matter.
  3. Upon hearing Counsel Ipo, it was directed that the Claimants were given 14 days to comply with the orders made on 29 April 2024 failing which the claim would be struck out.
  4. Costs were ordered against the Claimants in the meantime for non-compliance.
  5. The matter was adjourned to 25 June 2024 at 9:30am for mention.
  6. These directions were perfected, signed and sealed on 18 June 2024. 22 July 2024
  7. The matter was called for Mention on 22 July 2024 at 9:30am. On 22 July 2024 (almost a month after the date the matter was earlier fixed for), both Counsels Ipo and Iroga were in attendance.
  8. Counsel Ipo informed court that the Direction Orders of the 10 June which were perfected on 18 June were served on Counsel for the Claimants on 20 June 2024.
  9. The 14 days given for compliance were to expire on 24 June.
  10. If as a consolation, given that the Claimants’ Counsel was served on 20 June, one would have expected Counsel to file by the 4 July 2024. As a matter of fact, and as it had transpired, by 4 July 2024 the Claimants have not complied with the orders.
  11. The Claimants finally filed on 11 July 2024. In other words, compliance was affected some 7 days after the 4 July or 21 days after Counsel had been served with the orders to file within 14 days.

Unless Order – strike out

  1. Counsel Ipo raised the objection that since the orders of the 10 June 2024 constituted an ‘Unless Order,’ the court should strike out the Claim. It was to expire on 24 June 2024. There was no compliance by 24 June.
  2. Whereas Counsel Iroga pointed out that the correct computation of time would run from the date of service. As Counsel was served on 20 June the 14 days would expire by 4 July. He submitted that he filed on 11 July as he had been unwell and that he usually received instructions from his client Chief Quity. He found difficulties at times in dealing with Chief Quity as most of the time he was in the village. He is not in very good health – sick with diabetes – found difficulty in compliance. Justice should be applied given the circumstances.
  3. On that token, Counsel Iroga relied on Rule 1.14 that allows for consideration of justice in such circumstances.
  4. The matter was adjourned for hearing on 29 July 2024.
  5. On 29 July 2024, Counsels sought further time to fully canvass Rule 23.4 and to prepare their submission with supporting authorities; including as in light of Rule 9.14
  6. By Directions of the 29 July 2024, the matter was adjourned to 6th August, 2024 at 10am for hearing. Counsels were to provide court with relevant materials including case authorities relative to the position of unless orders in Solomon Islands or the position in general (as in other jurisdictions) together with written submissions in support for their respective arguments. Costs in the cause.

Submissions by Counsels

  1. Counsel for the Claimant in his submission posed the correct question, for that is what the court sought submissions on,
  2. In his submissions, Counsel Iroga for the Claimant submitted that an ‘unless order’ is an order of the court instructing a party to comply with directions specified in the order and also stating the consequences of noncompliance with the order within a specified time. Any sanction for non-compliance attaching to such an order must be proportionate to the request being ordered.”
  3. Counsel Iroga referred this court to the case of Mega Corporation Ltd v Lotinta [2003] SBCA 8; CA-CAC 006 of 2003 (14 July 2003).
  4. I find the discussion in this case helpful in understanding what an unless order is.

The other law lords Lawton L.J. and Sir Stanley Rees agreed with the judgment of Roskill L.J. Lawton L.J. went further to point out that the view held in Whistler v. Hancock regarding the effect of an “unless order” as bringing an action to an end was no longer appropriate. He took the view that contrary to what had been said, the litigation was not dead but very much alive; it was still to continue. Note, Lord Denning in the Villerwest Case (ibid) had suggested that even if the case had ceased to exist – was dead or defunct, “the court always has power to bring it to life again, by extending the time”.

In the case of Bacal Contracting Ltd v. Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd[16] the approach taken in Samuels v. Linzi Dresses (ibid) was followed. Since then later cases have re-affirmed the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Samuels v. Linzi Dresses. In Re Jokai Tea Holdings Ltd[17] it was held where “the court has to decide what are the consequences of a failure to comply with an “unless order”, the relevant question is whether such failure is intentional and contumelious. The court should not be astute to find excuses for such failure since obedience to orders of the court is the foundation on which its authority is found. But if a party can clearly demonstrate that there was no intention to ignore or flout the order and the failure to obey was due to extraneous circumstances, such failure to obey is not to be treated as contumelious and therefore does not disentitle the litigant to rights which he would otherwise have enjoyed.” (see also Grand Metropolitan Nominee (No. 2) Co. Ltd v. Evans[18] in which the approach above was affirmed and applied).”
  1. Whilst I find the case interesting in as far as it relates to the discussion of what ‘an unless order,’ is, the test to apply and whether it constitutes finality or not, it was a case decided prior to the current rules.
  2. The current rules were made in 2007.
  3. Counsel Iroga submitted that Rule 17.13 provides that any order required to be served, shall be served within 7 days of it being perfected or within the time set by court or as prescribed by the rules.
  4. I understand Counsel’s submissions on this point relates to computing of time for compliance. As the order was perfected on 18 June 2024 and was served on 20 June 2024, when computing the time as prescribed in the order, the due date should either be 4 or 5 July 2024. By filing on 11 July 2024, he was 7 or 8 days late.
  5. Counsel Iroga asked Court to consider whether an unless order applies or can be fittingly applied in this case.
  6. Counsel says that despite admitting the lateness of filing and serving of the document which is a sworn statement of list of documents the lateness is justified as the deponent from who instructions were obtained was away in Buala at the material time. Further the Deponent was ill at the material time. It was further submitted that the actions of the Claimants is not persistent and that they are not serial offenders against the orders of the court.
  7. Counsel Iroga asked Court to again consider Rule 1.14 in determining the consequences for non-compliance.
  8. The overarching consideration is justice in the circumstances of this case in light of the explanations given, says Counsel Iroga.
  9. On the other hand, Counsel Ipo submitted that Rule 23.4 is the basis for the application and that the court should strike out the Claim for failing to comply with an unless order.
  10. The non-compliance was systemic and deliberate; it concerns his clients so gravely, says Counsel Ipo.
  11. Counsel Ipo found his footing from the case of Solomon Security Service Ltd v AIPF (SI) Ltd [2022] SBCA 25; SICOA-CAC 30 of 2020 (18 November 2022)

Determination

  1. I thank Counsels for their submissions. They have assisted me greatly.
  2. I understand the reasons and circumstances given by Counsel Iroga. If only these were communicated prior to the 4 or 5 July 2024.
  3. Whilst I have confidence in Counsel Iroga’s ability to represent the interests of his clients well especially in this case, the same I must say with regard to Counsel Ipo, I must consider the circumstances relative to the issue before me.
  4. In the case referred to by both Counsels, the Court of Appeal states:
  5. The Direction Orders of 10 June 2024, spells out as follows:
  6. I accept that the Direction Orders 10 June 2024 was made in the manner outlined by the Court of Appeal. It constitutes an unless order. It is self-executory. It sets out succinctly what needs to be done by a timeline and the consequences of failing that which is ordered to be done by the given timeline.
  7. In my view, the non-compliance by the Claimants in this case is borderline. I say so because of the circumstances of the non-compliance of the unless order referred to.
  8. Given the nature of the case and in light of the lateness of filing as directed, this is a matter that I should exercise the discretion to continue the proceedings.
  9. As emphasized in the case referred to above, the consideration of whether an unless order should automatically end up with a strike out of the pleadings or a claim, revolves around a judge’s exercise of discretion.
  10. I note, seriously for Counsel Iroga’s attention what the Court of Appeal in Solomon Security Service Ltd v AIPF (SI) Ltd states at paragraph 22:
  11. It is noted that the court’s discretion under Rule 23.4 is wide ranging. Whilst it is concerning that recalcitrant litigants do not clog the system; in the circumstances of this matter, I do not view the Claimants or Counsel Iroga as uncooperative or obstinately disobedient.
  12. Whilst I refuse the application to strike out the claim for non-compliance of the unless order, I must warn the Claimant that future non-compliance will not be tolerated.

ORDERS

  1. The application for non-compliance of unless order is refused;
  2. Costs in the Cause

THE COURT
The Hon. Justice Ronald Bei Talasasa Jr
PUISNE JUDGE


[1] Referred to in Mega Corporation Ltd v Lotinta [2003] SBCA 8; CA-CAC 006 of 2003 (14 July 2003)


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2024/102.html