Society of Mary of Solomon Islands v Auga [2025] SBHC 15; HCSI-CC 429 of 2024 (6 February 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Society of Mary of Solomon Islands v Auga
Citation:
Date of decision:	6 February 2025
Parties:	Society of Mary of Solomon Islands v Augustine Auga
Date of hearing:	6 February 2025
Court file number(s):	429 of 2024
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Pitakaka; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The Claimant is granted default judgment in the terms of the relief sought in the claim. 2. The Defendants and all persons claiming through them shall be evicted from Marist Land (Parcel No. 192-023-3). 3. The Claimant is granted possession of Marist Land. 4. All structures, crops, and property on Marist Land shall be forfeited to the Claimant. 5. The Defendants and all persons claiming through them shall not damage or remove any materials, soil, plants, or timber from Marist Land. 6. The Defendants and all persons claiming through them shall not enter or re-occupy Marist Land. 7. The Defendants and all persons claiming through them shall not intimidate or interfere with the Claimant and its workers on Marist Land. 8. If the Defendants fail to comply with these orders, the Claimant may apply for enforcement orders. 9. The Defendants shall be permanently restrained from claiming ownership of Marist Land. 10. The Guadalcanal Police Commander and his officers shall enforce these orders upon receiving a written request from the Claimant or its lawyers. 11. A penal notice is attached to Orders 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. 12. The court will assess damages, including environmental damage and loss of trees and logs. 13. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s legal costs, which will be assessed.
Representation:	Mr. Primo Afeau for the Claimant No representation for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r 5.37, r 9.17, 9.22 and 9.34
Cases cited:	Lethy & Siako v Luluku & others [1998] SBHC 13, QQQ Holdings Ltd v Honiara City Council [2003] SBHC 18,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 429 of 2024

BETWEEN

SOCIETY OF MARY OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Claimant

AND:

AUGUSTINE AUGA
(representing himself, his family and relatives)

Date of Hearing: 6 February 2025
Date of Ruling: 6 February 2025

Mr. Primo Afeau for the Claimant
No Appearance for the Defendant

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The Claimant, Society of Mary of Solomon Islands, filed legal proceedings on 21/10/24. The Claimant seeks an eviction order and possession of land known as "Marist Land" (Parcel No. 192-023-3) at St. Martin, Tenaru, Guadalcanal Province. The Claimant also seeks restraining orders, damages, and costs.
2. The Defendant did not file a defence within the required time under Rule 5.37 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
3. On 6/12/24, the Claimant applied for default judgment under Rules 9.17, 9.22, and 9.34.
4. The court must decide whether to grant default judgment based on these rules.

Issue 1: Whether the Claimant is entitled to default judgment
Rules applicable to Issue 1

5. Rule 9.17 allows the court to enter default judgment if the Defendant fails to file a defence within the required time.
6. Rule 9.22 allows the court to enter judgment in favor of the Claimant without a hearing.
7. Rule 9.34 allows the court to enter judgment for possession of land when the Defendant does not defend the claim.

Application of the applicable rules to Issue 1

8. The Claimant filed a sworn statement by Brother Philip Kanai on 6/12/24. This statement confirms that the Defendant was properly served.
9. The Defendant did not respond or file a defence. This satisfies the requirements of Rule 9.17.
10. Brother Philip Kanai also filed a sworn statement on 21/10/24. His statement confirms that the Claimant owns Marist Land. It also confirms that the Defendant unlawfully occupied and encroached on the land.
11. The Defendant did not contest these allegations.

Conclusion on Issue 1

12. The Claimant has met the requirements under Rule 9.17.
13. The court grants default judgment in the terms of the reliefs sought in the claim.

Issue 2: Whether the Court should exercise discretion to grant default judgment
Rules applicable to Issue 2

14. Granting default judgment is discretionary. The court must consider whether judgment without a trial is just and proper.
15. Rule 9.34 allows the court to grant default judgment for possession of land if the Defendant does not defend the claim.
16. The Claimant provided evidence that Marist Land is registered in its name. The Claimant also provided evidence that the Defendant unlawfully occupied and encroached on the land.

Application of applicable rules to Issue 2

17. The Defendant did not respond or file defence to the claim.
18. The primary relief sought is possession of land and eviction. The other reliefs depend on this primary relief.
19. The Claimant also seeks orders restraining the Defendant from further interference with the land.
20. The Claimant has satisfied all procedural requirements under Rules 9.17, 9.22, and 9.34.
21. There is no legal or jurisdictional issue preventing the court from granting judgment.

Applicable Case Authorities

22. In Lethy & Siako v Luluku & Others^[1], the court refused default judgment due to jurisdictional issues that affected the fundamental nature of the claim. This case highlights that default judgment should not be granted if jurisdiction is in question.
23. In QQQ Holdings Ltd v Honiara City Council^[2], the court declined default judgment because the claim sought declaratory relief, which required substantive legal arguments. This case emphasizes that default judgment should not be granted when complex legal issues need full consideration at trial.
24. The court considered these cases but found that the present claim does not raise jurisdictional issues or require substantive legal arguments. The claim is for possession of land, which Rule 9.34 explicitly allows in default judgment applications.

Finding/Conclusion on Rule 9.34

25. The court finds that Rule 9.34 applies in this case because the Claimant seeks possession of land.
26. The Defendant failed to file a defence or dispute the claim.
27. The Claimant provided evidence that Marist Land is registered in its name and that the Defendant unlawfully occupied and encroached on the land.
28. The court is satisfied that the claim meets the criteria for default judgment under Rule 9.34.
29. The court grants default judgment for possession of Marist Land.

Orders

30. The court makes the following orders:
    1. The Claimant is granted default judgment in the terms of the relief sought in the claim.
    2. The Defendants and all persons claiming through them shall be evicted from Marist Land (Parcel No. 192-023-3).
    3. The Claimant is granted possession of Marist Land.
    4. All structures, crops, and property on Marist Land shall be forfeited to the Claimant.
    5. The Defendants and all persons claiming through them shall not damage or remove any materials, soil, plants, or timber from Marist Land.
    6. The Defendants and all persons claiming through them shall not enter or re-occupy Marist Land.
    7. The Defendants and all persons claiming through them shall not intimidate or interfere with the Claimant and its workers on Marist Land.
    8. If the Defendants fail to comply with these orders, the Claimant may apply for enforcement orders.
    9. The Defendants shall be permanently restrained from claiming ownership of Marist Land.
    10. The Guadalcanal Police Commander and his officers shall enforce these orders upon receiving a written request from the Claimant or its lawyers.
    11. A penal notice is attached to Orders 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
    12. The court will assess damages, including environmental damage and loss of trees and logs.
    13. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s legal costs, which will be assessed.

DATED this 6th of February, 2025.

By the Court
Hon. Justice Michael Collin Pitakaka
Puisne Judge of the High Court

---

[1] [1998] SBHC 13; HC-CC 104 of 1996 (23 February 1998), Awich J
[2] [2003] SBHC 18; HC-CC 039 of 2003 (1 May 2003), Kabui J