JJ Ltd v Commissioner of Lands [2025] SBHC 132; HCSI-CC 675 of 2021 (15 October 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	JJ Ltd v Commissioner of Lands
Citation:
Date of decision:	15 October 2025
Parties:	JJ Limited v Commissioner of Lands, Registrar of Titles, Dolaries Sauwati
Date of hearing:	15 October 2025
Court file number(s):	675 of 2021
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	i) The Claimant’s Claim filed on the 20th November 2021 is hereby dismissed under rule 9.3 and 9.14 of the CPR). ii) I also order cost against the Claimant.
Representation:	Mr Billy Titiulu for the Claimant (No Appearance) Mr Pamela Rofeta for the First and Second Defendants Mrs Nuatali A Tongarutu for the Third Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule, r9.13 (a) and (b), 9.14, 9, r 1.13 and 1.14
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case NO. 675 of 2021

BETWEEN:

JJ LIMITED
Claimant

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF LANDS
First Defendant

AND:

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant

AND:

DOLARIES SAUWATI
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 8 October 2025
Date of Decision: 15 October 2025

Mr Billy Titiulu for the Claimant (No Appearance)
Mr Pamela Rofeta for the First and Second Defendants
Mrs Nuatali A Tongarutu for the Third Defendant

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING

Bird PJ:

1. This proceeding is commenced by JJ Limited (Claimant) alleging mistake and fraud in relation to the process of the registration of Parcel Number 191-029-201. It is alleged that the Commissioner of Lands (1^st Defendant) with the Registrar of Titles (2^nd Defendant) and Dolaries Sauwati’s (3^rd Defendant) actions in the registration process was procured with mistake and fraud. The person behind the Claimant’s claim is Mr Peter Chow.
2. The proceeding was commenced on the 23^rd November 2021. By the 17^th August 2023, it was ready for trial and an agreed court trial book was filed. A date for trial was fixed for the 12^th October 2023. On that date, counsel for the Claimant was ill and another trial date was fixed for the 15^th November 2023.
3. On the 15^th November, the matter was called again. The Claimant’s witness, Mr Chow was required by the defendants for cross-examination. The court was informed by counsel that Mr Chow was not available. He was in Australia and was unable to travel to Honiara. He had a medical condition. Counsel intends to tender Mr Chow’s sworn statement as evidence in the trial. That intention was objected to by the Defendants which led to an application under section 118 of the Evidence Act 2009.
4. The application was listed for hearing on the 29^th May 2024. The hearing did not proceed as the 3^rd Defendant’s counsel was ill. It was then adjourned to the 18^th June 2024 for oral submissions. On that date, the Claimant’s counsel applied for an adjournment and no oral submissions were made. The matter was further adjourned to the 18^th July 2024.
5. On the above date, the Claimant’s counsel informed the court that he will hand over his client’s file to Mr Hapa of Pacific Lawyers. Matter was further adjourned to the 1^st August 2024 for the Claimant to appear with new counsel. On the mentioned date, neither the Claimant nor Mr Hapa appeared. It was called again on the 22^nd October 2024. There was no appearance of the Claimant or Mr Hapa.
6. On the 29^th October 2024 and upon non-appearance of the Claimant or counsel, their application filed on the 21^st November 2023 was dismissed for want of prosecution. That had led to the 3^rd Defendant’s application for dismissal of proceeding pursuant to rule 9.13 (a) and (b) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (CPR).

Application

7. The 3^rd Defendant’s application and supporting sworn statement was personally served on Mr Peter Chow on the 19^th November 2024. The Claimant through Mr Chow did not file any response until the 12^th June 2025 when Mr Billy Titiulu made appearance in court for the Claimant. Mr Titiulu was directed to file a notice of change of advocate.
8. By the next appearance on the 8^th July, Mr Titiulu has yet to file the notice. He was further directed to file the notice by the 9^th July. Further direction was given in which the Claimant was required to file sworn statement by the 15^th July. Matter was adjourned to the 29^th July. Mr Titiulu made no appearance on that date. Time was extended for him to file the Claimant’s sworn statement. The court adjourned the matter to the 20^th August for hearing of the application.
9. On the above date, Mr Titiulu was on compassionate leave and a fresh hearing date was fixed for the 8^th October. Neither Mr Titiulu nor Mr Chow appeared in court on the day. The court proceeded to hear the 3^rd Defendant’s application in their absence. It is noted that by then, Mr Titiulu has yet to file a notice of change of advocate and a sworn statement from his client.
10. The 3^rd Defendant’s application is premised upon the fact that the Claimant has failed to prosecute their claim expeditiously. Pursuant to r. 9.13 (a) and (b) of the CPR, a defendant may make application for dismissal of a claimant’s claim if the claimant is required to take a step in the proceeding required by these rules, or to comply with an order of the court, not later than the end of a particular time and does not do what is required before the end of that time.
11. Under r. 9.14 of the rules, the court has a discretion to dismiss the proceeding or make any other order it considers appropriate.
12. I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs the sequence of events in this proceeding. When the Claimant’s application under s.118 of the Evidence Act was filed, Mr Peter Chow was under medical care in Australia. Since that time, he had travelled back to Honiara. He was personally served with the 3^rd Defendant’s application and supporting sworn statement at Hongsun School in Honiara on the 19^th November 2024. He acknowledged service of the documents by signing in the document marked “DS” to the 3^rd Defendant’s sworn statement filed on the 18^th March 2025.
13. Since Mr Chow was in Honiara from 2024 to this day, he could have pushed to have his claim heard and determined by the court. In the absence of any evidence from Mr Chow, the court could take it that he has made no attempt to pursue the claim.
14. It is further noted that having being served with the 3^rd Defendant’s application, he could have filed responses and sworn statements. It is also noted that from the date of service on him to the date of hearing of this application, there was no document filed by the Claimant.
15. Directions orders were made on the 12^th June and extended until the 20^th August 2025. None of the orders were complied with. On the hearing date, Mr Titiulu and Mr Chow did not make any appearance in court. No reason was given for their absence.
16. It is therefore obvious to the court that the Claimant has failed to prosecute their claim expeditiously. The Claimant has also failed to contest the 3^rd Defendant’s application.
17. In view of the above discussions, I am satisfied that the Claimant has failed to prosecute their claim under rule 9.13 (a) and (b) of the CPR. Having said that, I will also take note of rule 1.13 and 1.14 of the rules. These rules detail the objective of the rules. They were enacted to enable the courts to deal with cases justly with minimum delay and expense.
18. This proceeding was initially listed for trial on the 15^th November 2023. Due to various reasons and more especially the Claimant’s failure to have the matter tried, nothing was done to further progress it until the 3^rd Defendant’s application was filed on the 19^th November 2024. There was a delay of more than 1 year to have the matter tried. I am therefore of the view that a delay of more than 1 year operates contrary to rules 1.13 and 1.14 of the CPR. I hereby order that the Claimant’s Claim filed on the 20^th November 2021 is dismissed under rules 9.13 and 9.14 of the rules. I also order cost against the Claimant.
19. In passing, I have noted that on the 29^th July 2025, I directed that the Claimant and the 3^rd Defendant’s respective applications would be heard together. Having properly perused the court file, the Claimant’s application was dismissed for want of prosecution on the 29^th October 2024. In view of that position, I need not discuss that application in this ruling.
20. Orders of the court:-
    1. The Claimant’s Claim filed on the 20^th November 2021 is hereby dismissed under rule 9.3 and 9.14 of the CPR).
    2. I also order cost against the Claimant.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge