Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Ansah v Attorney-General [1994] SBHC 8; HC-CC 411 of 1993 (4 May 1994)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 411 of 1993

JOHN ADOLPH FLYNN ANSAH

-V-

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHERS

High Court of Solomon Islands

(Muria, CJ.)

Hearing: 4 May 1994
Ruling: 4 May 1994

Mr.R. Teutao for Applicant
Attorney General for Respondents

MURIA, CJ: Mr. Teutao has now applied to have this case adjourned. Counsel argued that he needs to cross-examine Mr. Bosoboe regarding the contents of the affidavit which the applicant has just filed in court this morning. Secondly Mr. Teutao submitted that this is the first adjournment in this case and so the Court grant the adjournment sought. Thirdly Mr. Teutao asked that the case be adjourned to enable Mr. Kama to file affidavits in support of the applicant's case.

Naturally, Mr. Afeau objects to this application for adjournment.

I am rather surprised that Counsel for the applicant forgot that on 9/3/94 he sought postponement of the hearing of this matter when he appeared before me in chambers. The ground for that request for postponement was mainly due to Counsel's being unwell and that he needed 21 days sick leave. I granted that request and this matter was not heard on 11/3/9. If that is not an application for adjournment I do not know what else to call it.

Clearly that was an application for adjournment before a judge in Chambers and which was granted. Today's application for adjournment is the second request for adjournment as Mr. Afeau correctly pointed out.

Mr. Teutao had obviously conceded that Mr. Kama had been dealing with the applicant's application for renewal of work and residence permits. Mr. Kama undoubtedly knew about the case now before the Court. Counsel for the applicant clearly has known all along that Mr. Kama has knowledge of the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Teutao told the court that he had earlier on two occasions requested Mr. Kama to file an affidavit in support of the applicant's case, but Mr. Kama failed to do so. Why did Counsel have to wait until the day of the hearing before he sought adjournment to enable Mr. Kama to file the affidavit he needed? Why did Mr. Kama have to wait until today to request time to prepare affidavit? Was he taken by surprise by these proceedings?

I do not see the geniuness in Counsel's request for adjournment in order to enable Mr.Kama to file an affidavit in this case. As Mr. Afeau pointed out, Mr. Kama has always been in Honiara and he could be easily called to give oral evidence if the applicant wishes.

The other ground of this application for adjournment, that is, to enable counsel for the applicant to cross-examine Mr. Bosoboe, is the only one that perhaps needs serious consideration by the Court before deciding whether to grant or refuse the application.

Mr. Afeau suggested that the affidavit just filed bears very little on the issues to be determined in this case. He argued that the real issue is whether the Court has power to order Certiorari or Mandamus against the decisions made by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

Whilst I appreciate Mr. Afeau's argument, I feel the issues raised for the Court's determination bear relevance on the exercise of the Court's power to review decisions made by administrative authorities. For this is really what we are concerned with here. The applicant seeks the Court's power to review the decisions made by the Commissioner of Labour and Director of Immigration.

In order, therefore, for the Court to look into those administrative decisions (if the Court has power to do so) the Court must also examine the circumstances giving rise to those decisions. In such case, the conduct and actions of those responsible for making the decisions become a relevant matter for the Court to take into account.

The allegations raised against the Senior Labour Officer concerned are very serious. They bear heavily on the propriety of the decisions now challenged by the applicant.

It is also an attack on the official conduct of the Senior public officer concerned which in turn bears on functioning of an office in a government set up. This I feel is a serious matter also which the Officer concerned must be given the opportunity, in fairness to him, to respond to.

I do not feel that the officer concerned should be deprived of that opportunity simply because he had already denied the allegation concerning the $2,000.00 in his earlier affidavit. The affidavit now filed by the applicant throws in additional matters which I must give the Senior Labour Officer the opportunity to respond to either by affidavit or in Court.

It is in those circumstances that I feel that I must exercise the Court's discretion and grant the adjournment. In abundance of caution, I will allow an adjournment.

As suggested by Counsel for the applicant, this adjournment is only for about a week. However as the only next available date for the Court to hear this matter is 18th May, I shall adjourn it to that date.

This case is adjourned to Wednesday 18th May 1994 at 9 a.m.

There will be no other adjournment of this case.

Any cost of today's hearing must be paid by the applicant.

G.J.B. Muria
CHIEF JUSTICE

4 May 1994