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

Olavae v Attorney General [2019] SBHC 61; HCSI-CC 190 of 2016 (16 August 2019)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 190 of 2016

GEORGE OLAVAE, WESLEY OLAVAE, ANNE OLAVAE AND CLAYTON OLAVAE
(Trading under the Business Name of Bellona Province)

V

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Premier Rennell and Bellona Province)
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 31 July 2019
Date of Judgment: 16 August 2019

Mr. C Fakari’i for the Claimant
Mr. D Damilea for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

1. Claimant is the owner and operator of accommodations in Honiara – commonly known as Tropicana Motel. Defendant is sued representing the Renbel Provincial Government, for the reason that 2 members of the Provincial Executive, have stayed at the claimant’s motel in Honiara. Evidence shows the 2 members are: Hon. Brian Ngibuta and Hon. Bernard Taungeuka.
2. Claimant produced evidence that the 2 members have used the rooms. But the issue to resolve is: “Whether the 2 members’ use of the rooms was in their official capacity or private individual capacity?” If official, then the Provincial Government is liable. If private then the 2 members are personally liable.
3. Claimant alleged that the 2 members have rented the rooms, in their official capacity, but failed to produce evidence of any arrangement from the responsible Government officers in Renbel. Responsible Government officers should include the: Premier, Provincial Secretary or Provincial Treasurer. It would be different if I had seen some correspondence from Renbel Provincial Government responsible officers to accommodate the 2 members at the claimant’s motel. There is no official correspondence pleaded in the claim or disclosed in evidence.
4. I have seen invoices for beers, cigarettes and food^[1]. And the accommodation invoices are for durations of longer periods, some for more than one month. How could Provincial Government officials (2 members) be absent from work for more than one month; just staying in Honiara? How could Government officials charge their beer, cigarette and food consumption to the public wallet?
5. The only valid invoice, I could see is for conference hire and catering^[2]. But then there is no pleading and evidence to show that, the Renbel Provincial Government had authorised some official workshops to be held at Tropicana motel. Even an email or letter requesting hosting venue of the workshop would be sufficient evidence.
6. But I note that there was part payment for the conference hire and catering invoice. For this reason, I would hold the Provincial Government liable for the invoice on conference hire and catering. That invoice must be settled in full, for surcharges and delay in settlement, disregarding the $5,000.00, already paid. Invoice must be settled in full plus surcharges.
7. The 2 cases Counsel Fakari’i cited do not assist his client’s claim. The Quality Motel^[3] case, said in obiter, that it does not seem right for Government to pay for food and beer for Ministers, except room rentals. But in that case, Government had authorised the Ministers stay. Payment for room rentals was delayed due to the serious financial crisis in 2002. I was counsel defending Government in that case. In the pre-RAMSI year of 2002, there was serious financial crisis. So serious, that public servants would go without salaries up to 4 pay periods. And the case of Ray^[4], court held the contract binds the Government because, it was authorised by Mr. Fa’afunua, National Organising Committee Manager, for the Pacific Arts Festival in 2012. Being the Manager for the national event, which Solomon Islands Government was hosting, Mr. Fa’afunua was acting under ostensible authority, of the Solomon Islands Government, to enter into contracts for works relating to hosting of the regional event. In both cases contracts were entered into by authority of the government, acting through its responsible officers.
8. In this claim, I could not see any form of authorisation from the Premier, Provincial Secretary and or Treasurer. Nothing of such was produced in evidence to substantiate this claim. Therefore, I can conclude as Mr. Damilea, submitted, that, the arrangement was unauthorised.
9. Accordingly; the claim succeeds in part as follows:-
   • 9.1. Defendant is liable to settle in full the invoice for conference hire and catering (paragraphs 5 and 6 above).
   • 9.2. The other invoices are not expended under authorised arrangements and therefore, defendant not liable to pay.
   • 9.3. Parties meet their own cost.

THE COURT
JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

^[1] Pages 12 and 15 of Court Book.
^[2] Invoice at page 11 of Court Book.
^[3] Quality Motel Limited v Attorney General, High Court Civil Case 308 of 2001 (12^th February 2002).
^[4] Ivarhlyn Ray v Attorney General, High Court Civil Case 261 of 2016 (11^th September 2017)