Rolenice v The Public Trustee [2025] SBHC 114; HCSI-CC 473 of 2020 (8 October 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Rolenice v The Public Trustee
Citation:
Date of decision:	8 October 2025
Parties:	Medosi Rolenice v The Public Trustee
Date of hearing:	7 November 2024
Court file number(s):	473 of 2020
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	I hereby dismiss the Claimant’s case with cost. I hereby order accordingly.
Representation:	Mr. Lappy Hite for the Claimant Mr. Sholto Rodney Manebosa for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Evidence Act S 31 (1)
Cases cited:	Telaupa v Kolaoi [2004] SBHC 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 473 of 2020

BETWEEN:

MEDOSI ROLENICE
(trading as Medosi Rolenice Pest Control)
Claimant

AND:

THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE
(Administrator for Moon Pin Quan’s Estate)
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 7 November 2024
Date of Decision: 8 October 2025

Mr. Lappy Hite for the Claimant
Mr. Sholto Rodney Manebose for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

Bird PJ:

1. In this proceeding, Medosi Rolenice (Claimant) is suing the Public Trustee as administrator of the estate of Moon Pin Quan (Defendant). The Claimant’s claim is premised upon an agreement allegedly entered into between the Claimant and Moon Pin Quan (deceased). The Claimant asserts that the deceased owed him the sum of $65,500.00 for works he carried out in the deceased’s building. At the material time, the Claimant has conducted business under Business Name ‘Medosi Rolenice Pest Control’. The scope of his work includes fumigation of properties.
2. The Claimant asserts that in or about the 28^th June 2015, he was engaged by the deceased through one Kevin Buga to fumigate his building known as Linda Quan Building at Chinatown. The purpose of fumigation was to prevent white ants from infesting the building. Before the event, Kevin Buga was engaged by the deceased as a contructor.
3. There was no written agreement between the Claimant and the deceased. In any event, the Claimant asserts that on the above date, he was advised by Mr Buga to go and meet with him and the deceased on the second level of the Linda Quan Building. He further asserts that during the meeting, the deceased asked him to spray the whole building. It was a three-storey building. The Claimant indicated his willingness to do the job and his charge would be $65,000.00. The deceased was said to have indicated his acceptance by saying “ok hem orait. Tomorrow you stat”. On the 29^th June 2015, the Claimant carried out and completed the job within three days. The only witness to the alleged verbal agreement was Kevin Buga.
4. It is further the Claimant’s case that subsequent to works being completed and on or about the 2^nd July 2015, he gave to the deceased his bill of $65,000.00. He was informed by the deceased to check on him the following day. He gave to the Claimant his mobile number. The said amount of $65,000.00 has not been settled by the deceased to this day.
5. The deceased on the other hand has filed an amended defence. He denies the existence of an agreement with the Claimant and puts him to strict proof. He stated Kevin Buga was not his contractor. He was an employee not his contractor. He also stated that his building is not a three-storey structure and also put the Claimant to strict proof thereof. He further states that if fumigation works was in fact carried out, it could have been completed within a single day.

Discussion

6. During trial, the Claimant was called and he relied upon his sworn statement on pages 50 to 78 as his evidence. He was subjected to cross-examination by the Public Trustee. In cross-examination, he confirmed the agreement between himself and the deceased was a verbal one. He knew that the deceased was a well-known and experienced businessman. He also knew that the deceased has been sick and later died. When suggested that the deceased did not agree for him to carry out the alleged works, he said the deceased agreed.
7. The second witness called by the Claimant was Kevin Buga. The summary of his evidence was that he worked for the deceased. He was approached by the deceased to look for a qualified pest control. He then contacted the Claimant who was a qualified pest control. The Claimant met with him and the deceased. He witnessed the verbal agreement between them. Consequent to the verbal agreement, the Claimant had performed the works. The deceased did not pay for the works done by the Claimant.
8. I have noted that three other witness statements were filed to support the Claimant’s assertion. The sworn statements are those of Gordon Kanijama, Steve Kwanafia and Ben Ledisua. These three supposed to be witnesses were not available during trial. The Public Trustee was unable to cross-examine them on their respective sworn statement.
9. For the Defendant, the Public Trustee intended to call two witnesses being Innidy Panda Simata and Tam Ling Ho. During trial, Mr Hite who represents the Claimant informed the court that he does not intend to cross-examine the witnesses.
10. The Defendant’s evidence as contained in the two sworn statements mentioned above is the existence of the alleged verbal agreement is denied. It is further denied that the Linda Quan Building in Chinatown was a three-storey building. It merely contained two floors including the ground floor and one level up.
11. The alleged verbal agreement between the Claimant and the deceased was said to be entered into on the second level of the Linda Quan Building. Ms Tam Ling Ho was not cross-examined by the Claimant’s counsel on the contents of her sworn statement. The contents therefore are left unchallenged.
12. I have had the opportunity to peruse the respective closing submissions of the parties. The Claimant merely relies on the alleged verbal agreement. Mr Buga who further gave evidence confirming the verbal agreement. In relation to the other three witnesses, they were not available to have their sworn statements admitted as evidence. Because of their non-availability, they were also not cross-examined on the contents of their respective sworn statements. Upon that basis, I am not prepared to put any weight on their respective sworn statements. The Claimant relies upon the case of Telaupa v Kolaoi [2004] SBHC 95, HC-CC 039 of 2001 and I have noted it.
13. I have noted that in the Telaupa case, the defendant agreed to the existence of an oral agreement. The value of the labour charge was the issue then. In this proceeding, the verbal agreement is denied by the Defendant. The decision in the Telaupa case could be distinguished from this proceeding as inapplicable.
14. I have noted that the Claimant through counsel had opted not to cross-examine the Defendant’s witnesses. The evidence contained in the sworn statements on pages 78 to 87 of the court book remains unchallenged. I have especially taken note of the document on page 84 in which the deceased’s instruction during his lifetime were stated and outlined.
15. The date of the alleged verbal agreement was the 28^th June 2015. The venue was level two of Linda Quan Building at Chinatown. The said agreement was allegedly entered into in the presence of Mr Buga. The alleged fumigation was carried out from 29^th June to 2^nd July 2015.
16. The sworn statement of Ms Ho deposed to the fact that the said building contained one level up. It is not a three-storey building. That evidence is unchallenged by the Claimant. The instructions of the deceased to his lawyer contained on page 84 of the court book is also unchallenged.
17. These unchallenged pieces of evidence put into issue the weight of the evidence of the Claimant and that of Mr Buga. Apart from stating there was a verbal agreement and that work was performed and completed on the 2^nd July 2015, there is no other evidence that chemicals and materials were actually purchased to carry out the works that they had performed.
18. Paragraph 12 of the Claimant’s sworn statement on page 53 of the court described the works done on levels 1, 2 and 3. As I have already stated the building only contained a ground floor and one other level up. On that issue, there is no supporting sworn statement that the building had three floors to it. Upon that basis, how could the Claimant assert that work was done on three floors.
19. Mr Manebosa have raised various other issues on admissibility of the evidence of the Claimant. The exhibits attached were unsigned and were not admissible. Under the provision of section 31(1) the Evidence Act 2009, those evidence are be admissible.
20. In any case, the issue for me to determine is whether or not the alleged verbal agreement is of existence and valid. On that note, I am unable to get assistance form the case cited by Mr Hite of counsel for the Claimant.
21. The existence of the verbal agreement is disputed by the defendant. There is no other documentary evidence before me to show that chemicals and materials were purchased to carry out the alleged works. The structure of the building as stated by Ms Ho in her sworn statement does not match the description provided by the Claimant and his witness.
22. In the absence of such supplementary and essential evidence by the Claimant, I am not satisfied that there was an existence of a valid verbal agreement between the Claimant and the deceased as alleged. There are loopholes in the Claimant’s evidence that are unaccounted for. Upon the totality of the evidence by the parties to this proceeding, the Claimant has failed to prove his case on the balance of probability. I hereby dismiss the Claimant’s case with cost. I hereby order accordingly.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge