Kwalagau v Batalofo [2024] SBHC 43; HCSI-CC 542 of 2023 (13 May 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Kwalagau v Batalofo
Citation:
Date of decision:	13 May 2024
Parties:	Chaniel R Kwalagau, Steven Raefia, Mark Marai, Peter Kairi and Jesle Kakama
Date of hearing:	13 May 2024
Court file number(s):	542 of 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Aulanga PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1) Claim is struck out for want of prosecution under Rule 9.71 (a) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. 2) No order for costs
Representation:	Mr D Lidimani for the Claimants (No Appearance) Mr B Upwe for all the Defendants
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007, r 9.71 (a)
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 542 of 2023

BETWEEN

CHANIEL. R. KWALAGAU, STEVEN RAEFIA, MARK MARAI, PETER KAIRI AND JESLE KAKAMA
(Representing themselves and the customary owners of Anotafa customary land)
Claimants

AND:

JOHN BATALOFO
(Representing Onebala tribe)
First Defendant

AND:

HAROLD UINGWAI, JONATHAN UINGWAI AND JOHN UINGWAI
(Representing themselves and all their family members)
Second Defendants

AND:

PETER MAUMAU, GILDO DIKORAMOA, PHILIP SANGA, JOSEPH NAOGA AND MORTON DEFERA
(Representing themselves and all their family members)
Third Defendants

AND:

NICOLAS OISURU
(Representing Fourth Defendant himself and all his family members)
Fourth Defendant

Date of Hearing: 13 May 2024
Date of Ruling: 13 May 2024

Mr D Lidimani for the Claimants (No Appearance)
Mr B Upwe for all the Defendants

RULING ON CLAIM STRUCK OUT

1. Following the filing of the claim, case is listed for mention today, 13^th May 2024 at 1:30pm. Notice of appearance has been issued to legal counsels through their respective email addresses. Only counsel Mr. Upwe for all the Defendants has turned up. Unfortunately, Mr. Lidimani, as counsel for the Claimants did not turn up. Court did not receive any information (either by written correspondence, email or phone call) regarding counsel Lidimani’s nonappearance today. This is unacceptable.
2. I begin on the premise that as the Claimants’ counsel representing the party that initiated or filed this claim at the High Court of Solomon Islands, he has the legal obligation to attend to the Court at all times. The decision to bring the allegation contained in the claim against all the Defendants is a serious decision made by the Claimants based on legal advice. As a result, the Defendants’ rights to the subject matter in dispute have to be challenged and of course, they would have to find legal counsel which will inevitably involve resources and financial costs on legal representation. Hence, there is an expectation that the Claimants or their legal counsel should attend to Court at all times to inform the Court on the status of the case and more importantly, to progress the case forward.
3. Unfortunately, due to no appearance by counsel for the Claimants, I order that this matter is struck out for want of prosecution under Rule 9.71 (a) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. No order for costs. The Defendants’ legal counsel to provide draft orders for the Court’s endorsement.

Orders of the Court

1. Claim is struck out for want of prosecution under Rule 9.71 (a) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
2. No order for costs

THE COURT
Augustine S. Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE