HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Talifilu v Tagini 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	5 February 2025 	
		
Parties: 	Celsus Talifilu Hon. Makario Tagini 	
		
Date of hearing: 	5 February 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	196 of 2024	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Lawry; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The petition is dismissed.
2. The petitioner is to pay the costs of the Respondent if not agreed to be taxed.
3. I certify to the His Excellency the Governor General that Makario Tagini was duly elected as Member of Parliament for the Baegu Asifola Constituency, Malaita Province	
		
Representation: 	Ms L Ramo for the Petitioner 
Mr W Rano and Mr L Fitzreggie for the Respondent 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Act Petition Rules 2019, r 6 (1) (d), r 6 (1) (e), r 49, r 34
Electoral Act S 52 (1)	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 196 of 2024

BETWEEN:

CELSUS TALIFILU
Petitioner

AND:

HON. MAKARIO TAGINI
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 5 February 2025
Date of Ruling: 5v February 2025

Ms L Ramo for the Petitioner 
Mr W Rano and Mr L Fitzreggie for the Respondents 

Lawry; PJ
RULING ON APPLICATION TO DISMISS PETITION 
1. 	The trial to hear the election petition has been fixed for today 5 February 2025. There was a final mention of the case at 9:30am on 29 January 2025.
2. 	The Petitioner filed an amended election petition on 3 December 2024. On 19 December 2024 the Respondent filed an interlocutory application to strike out the amended petition. Perhaps because of the Court vacation that application had not been placed on the Court file. It was given to me some minutes before my entering Court to hear the mention of the matter on 29 January 2025.
3. 	There is an issue whether the Court granted leave to file the amended petition. An application for such an amendment had been filed as long ago as 13 August 2024. When there was an earlier application to strike out the petition, argument proceeded on the basis of the amended petition. I understood leave had been granted to file the amended petition but counsel for the Petitioner argues that leave was yet to be granted.
4. 	Counsel submitted that the amended petition was only filed on the insistence of counsel for the Respondent.
5. 	At the mention hearing on 29 January 2025, counsel for the Petitioner told the Court that she did not object to the application to strike out the amended petition and would rely on the original petition. The position of the Respondent was that the effect of filing an amended petition is to replace the Petition so that the amended petition must comply with the rules for filing a petition.
6. 	It is common ground that the amended petition did not contain an address for service of the Petitioner however the petition originally filed did provide that information. Rule 6(1) (d) of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 provides that an election petition shall include a statement of the address within the jurisdiction for service of the petitioner and the contact details of the petitioner or of his advocate or agent.
7. 	Although the amended petition did not provide those details I am satisfied that they were provided in the petition as required by Rule 6. They ought to have been included in the amended petition but as they had already been in the petition served on the Respondent I am not satisfied that the omission to include it in the amended petition was fatal.
8. 	Rule 6(1)(e) provides:
	“6. (1) An election petition shall-
	(e) clearly identify the respondent or respondents to the petition together with their usual or last known address.”
9. 	That paragraph has two requirements, the first being a need to clearly identify the Respondent and the second to identify the Respondent’s usual or last known address.
10. 	At paragraph 6 of both the petition and the amended petition the following is recorded:
	“That on or around 4 May 2024 culminating from his election, the Respondent was appointed and or sworn in as the Minister responsible or the Ministry of Forestry and Research of the Solomon Islands Government.”
11. 	The documents both appear to have the same typing error omitting the letter ‘f ’ from what is otherwise the word ‘or’ so that the paragraph should read that he was the Minister responsible for the Ministry of Forestry and Research. I accordingly treat that as what must have been intended.
12. 	Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the paragraph complies with Rule 6(1) (e). Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that the Respondent has after the fact been so appointed but he submits that the second limb of Rule 6(1) (e) has not been complied with.
13. 	I bear in mind the seriousness of the allegations made, which allege that someone who is now a Minister of the Crown has committed the offence of election bribery. I also note the importance for the public to hearing evidence put forward to support such allegations.
14. 	However the seriousness of the allegations is also a reason why the rules must be strictly complied with.
15. 	I find that there was no compliance with the second limb in Rule 6(1) (e). Paragraph 6 of the Petition and of the amended petition make no mention of the Respondent’s usual or last known address. I find the rule requires clear identification of that information but none was supplied.
16. 	Counsel for the Petitioner then submitted that Rule 49 would save the petition in any event. That Rule provides:
	“49. No proceedings under The Electoral Act or under section 52(1) of the Constitution or under these Rules shall be defeated by any formal objection.”
17. 	Neither counsel provided any further submission on the effect of this rule.  I am not persuaded that Rule 49 permits me to overlook a mandatory requirement for all election petitions.
18. 	It is therefore not necessary to rule on whether the concession that the amended petition could be struck out had the effect of bringing the proceedings to an end when that clearly was not the intention of counsel for the Petitioner.
19. 	Rule 6(1) (e) in the petition and in the amended petition make it clear that I must find that both the petition and the amended petition failed to comply with a mandatory requirement. In these circumstances I have no option but to dismiss the petition.
20. 	I note that rule 34 of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 requires the Attorney-General or a person appointed by him to attend the trial of every election petition. Unfortunately there has been no appearance by or on behalf of the Attorney-General and that is regrettable as I would have benefitted from hearing submissions from the Attorney General on the issues raised in this application.
Orders
1.	The petition is dismissed.
2.	The petitioner is to pay the costs of the Respondent if not agreed to be taxed.
3.	I certify to the His Excellency the Governor General that Makario Tagini was duly elected as Member of Parliament for the Baegu Asifola Constituency, Malaita Province. 
By the Court
Hon. Justice Howard Lawry
Puisne Judge