Puia v Tangosia [2024] SBHC 36; HCSI-CC 546 of 2016 (3 June 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Puia v Tangosia
Citation:
Date of decision:	3 June 2024
Parties:	Tracy Puia v Alex Liolea Tangosia and Tania Fikiasi
Date of hearing:	3 June 2024
Court file number(s):	546 of 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Aulanga; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	(1) The claim is struck out pursuant to Rule 9. 72 (d) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. (2) The Claimant to pay costs of this proceeding to the Defendants on standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed. (3) The counterclaim is discontinued without costs. (4) The Defendants’ counsel to file sworn statement of proof of service of the Notice of Appearance for mention on 3rd June 2024 that was served on the Claimant, together with Notice of Discontinuance of the counterclaim by 5th June 2024. (5) The Defendants are at liberty to commence fresh or separate proceeding in relation to this dispute against the Claimant and other interested parties in due course.
Representation:	No Appearance for the Claimant Mr M Ale for the Defendants
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Solomon Island Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r1.8, r9.72 (d), r9.68
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 546 of 2016

BETWEEN

TRACY PUIA
Claimant

AND:

ALEX LIOLEA TANGOSIA AND TANIA FIKIASI
Defendants

Date of Hearing: 3 June 2024
Date of Ruling: 3 June 2024

No Appearance for the Claimant
Mr M Ale for the Defendant

RULING ON CLAIM STRUCK OUT AND DISCONTINUANCE OF COUNTERCLAIM

1. The claim is for trespass, restraining and possession of a Fixed Term Estate property PN 191-006-163 located in Tandai in West Honiara. The Defendants also filed a counterclaim for rectification and possession of that same property.
2. The Claimant has been represented by Mr. Makario Tagini of Global Lawyers. Mr. Tagini is now a National Parliamentarian. He no longer represents the Claimant or even to appear as a practising lawyer in Court.
3. This matter was last mentioned on 17^th July 2018. Thereafter, it remained dormant. After reallocation, I mentioned it on 25^th March 2024. This is a period of almost six years the file finally resurfaces into the Court’s listing after a significant but undue period of inactivity or dormancy of the matter.
4. From then on, it was mentioned for another three more occasions, that is, on 8^th April 2024, 21^st May 2024 and 3^rd June 2024. Except for the Defendants’ legal counsel, there were no appearances by the Claimant on those three occasions. Including the mention on 25^th March 2024, it would be the fourth consecutive occasion. The Claimant’s known address is at Tandai Heights in West Honiara.
5. On 3^rd June 2024, counsel Ale for the Defendants informed the Court that the Claimant was advised to attend to Court today and was served with a Notice of the mention of the matter listed to 3^rd June 2024 at 9:00am. He submitted that the mention of this matter this morning and the need for her to attend were already communicated to her. Upon the Court’s enquiry regarding the evidence to support that assertion, he responded and undertook to file a sworn statement by 5^th June 2024 as proof of service of the notice that was given to the Claimant regarding the need for her to turn up in Court. Counsel Ale then orally applied to strike out the claim for want of prosecution and submitted that if the application is granted, the counterclaim can be discontinued.
6. I gave leave for counsel to make that oral application without the need to file and serve any documents on the Claimant. This is to suit the straightforwardness nature of this case which has not been activated by the Claimant for almost six years and furthermore, in the light of the continued nonappearance of the Claimant without reasons.
7. I have heard and considered the application to strike out. The Court’s record shows that there are no steps taken by the Claimant to request the Court to relist the matter for mention since the last mention on 17^th July 2018. The Claimant has been living at Tandai Heights in West Honiara as disclosed in her sworn statement filed on 5^th July 2017. Hence, if the Claimant is serious and wants to progress the claim, she should have attended to the High Court Registry and asked for relisting of the matter in the latter part of 2018 or in 2019. She cannot sit on her laurels and wait upon the Court or counsel’s advice on the relisting. Furthermore, I also take into account that as of 2019, her lawyer Mr. Tagini has been elected as a National Parliamentarian. That in itself should ring a bell for her to ask the Court for the relisting of the matter, knowing that Mr. Tagini will not be appearing for her case anymore in Court. A reasonable person in the shoes of the Claimant whose case is still active and has not been mentioned for almost a year since it was last heard at the High Court would ask or even persist upon the Court to relist the matter for continuity of the proceeding.
8. Unfortunately, no action has been taken by the Claimant for almost six years. Furthermore, this matter upon reallocation was mentioned for four occasions without the Claimant appearing in the Court. The Defendants, at the very least, have had the curtesy of serving the Notice of Appearance on the Claimant for her to appear for the matter today. This is for the very reason to progress the matter and bring it to finality.
9. When the matter was mentioned today, it is overwhelmingly clear that the Claimant did not attend. This is a dereliction of her duty as a party to this proceeding to attend to the Court as and when the matter is called. Whether or not the nonattendance of the Claimant is attributed to some other factors known only to her, the unfortunate state of affairs of this matter remains to be that the Court is left in uncertainty or unassisted on the part of the Claimant on how to progress the matter forward.
10. It must be understood that this is a civil proceeding. It was brought to the Court by the Claimant upon procuring of legal advice. Upon service of the claim, the Defendants were put to task to defend the claim. Financial resources were expended by both parties as a result of this proceeding put to motion. The Court therefore takes charge or management of the proceeding. To minimise costs and delay, Rule 1.8 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 requires the parties to uphold the overriding objectives of the Rules by dealing with this matter quickly in order to bring it to finality. Part and partial of that duty is for the parties to regularly check at the Court’s Registry section and attend to the case as and when it is listed in Court.
11. For this case, all I can conclude is that the action of the Claimant for not activating this matter or attending to Court when the matter was called for mentions is grossly contrary to the overriding objectives imbued in the Rules. More profoundly, the Claimant has alas caught in contempt of Rule 9.72 (d) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
12. The application to strike out the claim is granted pursuant to Rule 9.72 (d) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. Consequently, the claim is struck out with costs to be paid to the Defendants on standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed. Align with the submission of the Defendants, I also grant the application for the discontinuation of the counterclaim without costs. Hence, I order the counterclaim is discontinued forthwith without costs. The Defendants’ or Counterclaimants’ counsel is directed to file sworn statement of proof of service of the Notice of today’s mention that was served on the Claimant, together with the Notice of Discontinuance of the counterclaim pursuant to Rule 9.68 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007, by 5^th June 2024. The Defendants are at liberty to commence fresh or separate proceeding in relation to this dispute against the Claimant and other interested parties in due course.

Orders of the Court

(1) The claim is struck out pursuant to Rule 9. 72 (d) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
(2) The Claimant to pay costs of this proceeding to the Defendants on standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
(3) The counterclaim is discontinued without costs.
(4) The Defendants’ counsel to file sworn statement of proof of service of the Notice of Appearance for mention on 3^rd June 2024 that was served on the Claimant, together with Notice of Discontinuance of the counterclaim by 5^th June 2024.
(5) The Defendants are at liberty to commence fresh or separate proceeding in relation to this dispute against the Claimant and other interested parties in due course.

THE COURT
Augustine S. Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE