HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Imbe v Ma’ake 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	2 December 2024	
		
Parties: 	Peter Holmes Imbe v Moffatt Ma’ake 	
		
Date of hearing: 	On Paper 	
		
Court file number(s): 	491 of 2024	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Pitakaka; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The application for an interim injunction is refused and dismissed.
2. The Claimant to serve the Claim on the Defendant within 7 days for pleadings to take its course under the rules.
3. No orders as to cost	
		
Representation: 		
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 491 of 2024

BETWEEN 

PETER HOLMES IMBE 
Applicant/Claimant 

AND:

MOFFAT MA’AKE 
Respondent/Defendant 

Date of Hearing: On Paper 
Date of Ruling: 2 December 2024

Michael Pitakaka PJ
RULING 
Upon reading the Urgent Application, the sworn statement of Peter Holmes Imbe, the Certificate of Urgency of Ben Etomea, the Undertaking as to Damages of Peter Imbe, filed respectively on 28/11/24 and considered them on paper.
And having considered the law on the requirements of granting interim restraining orders, I am not satisfied that interim injunction should be granted. This is because the Urgent Application of the Applicant/Claimant which seeks an interim injunction, is in substance, identical to the final relief sought in the main claim. In particular, the Claimant seeks an order from the Court for an immediate order for the Respondent/Defendant, their family members and agents to restrain from living on the customary land in Luova, Known as Mabiabu customary land located at Lata, Temotu Province, and the eviction of the Defendant are the same orders as the final reliefs that the claimant seeks in the substantive claim. The Claimant’s request for interim relief is effectively a request for a final judgment and should therefore be refused. The Claim must be served on the Defendant for normal due process of pleadings, discoveries and trial to take its course.
Conclusion and finding
In light of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the Applicant/Claimant’s application for an interim injunction must be refused. The relief sought is, in substance, the same as the final relief sought in the main action. The primary purpose of interim injunctions is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the full trial of the case. Granting the interim relief sought in this application would effectively determine the outcome of the matter before the full trial.
The application for interim injunction is therefore dismissed.
Orders
1.	The application for an interim injunction is refused and dismissed.
2.	The Claimant to serve the Claim on the Defendant within 7 days for pleadings to take its course under the rules.
3.	No orders as to cost
The Court
Hon. Justice Michael Pitakaka
Puisne Judge of the High Court