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

Pitakaka v Baekisapa [2016] SBHC 122; HCSI-CC 302 of 2015 (27 July 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Jurisdiction

BETWEEN: MADELYN PITAKAKA - Claimants

AND: MARVIN BAEKISAPA - Defendants

Mr. Kesaka for the claimants
Mr. Tegavota for the Defendant

Hearing: 27 July 2016

Coram Brown J:

The Category A claim was filed on the 15 July 2015. On the 19 August, a defence was filed and on the 15 September a reply made by the claimant. On the same day, the claimant filed a sworn statement in support.

By letter copied to Mr. Tegavota, dated 22 April 2006 Mr. Kesaka asked the Registrar to list the matter for mention to progress to trial. He confirmed all pleadings had been completed last year.

The Registrar listed the matter for mention on Friday 27 May before me in chambers. The notice stated that failure to attend may request in an order being made in your absence.

Neither counsel appear on the call over. The Deputy Registrar wrote to both counsel on Wednesday 6 July by email advising that following the mention day (when counsel did not attend) the matter had been listed for a 1 day trial over the 27 July. By usual court notice dated 8 July the trial date was confirmed. Both counsel are now before me and Mr. Tegavota seeks ad adjournment for his notice was not received until late and he presumed the matter would be afforded the usual directions as to preparation for trial.

No attempt has been made by the defendant before now to seek particulars for instance and no sworn statement in support of the defence has been filed. Mr. Tegavota also said his client is disabled and living on the property the subject of this dispute. I am not satisfied that fact sworn not have precluded counsel from taking proper instructions for a statement in support of the filed defence in the time since 15 September 2015.

By HC Rules 8.6, the powers of the court are recognized to include that power in R1.14 to dispense with compliance or full compliance with the rules in the interest of justice.

Long delay has already been occasionally the failure of the parties to seek directions. Since the pleadings have closed and in the absence of the apparent need for any applications on the part of the defendant to make answer to a request for particulars.

I am not satisfied the defendant has acted to support his case in time to warrant this counts further indulgence. Great criticism of the High Court has recently obliged the Court to address the question of delay.

It used be contrary to the interests of justice by if the claimant was prevented from proceeding with her case. It has been listed and notice given to both counsel in sufficient time for Mr. Tegavota to seek some direction if his client so needed but only today does he apply for an adjournment.

I refuse the adjournment. The matter will proceed.

BROWN J