HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Solomon Islands Ports Authority v Vaguru 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	29 September 2023	
		
Parties: 	Solomon Islands Ports Authority v Mostyn Vaguru 	
		
Date of hearing: 	29 September 2023	
		
Court file number(s): 	341 of 2020	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Lawry; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The Defendant and those who claim through him are to vacate the premises SK 8/2 on Parcel Number 191-024-0005 at Skyline in Central Honiara within 7 days of this order being served on them.
2. The Defendant is to pay damages to the Claimant being a market rent from 1 January 2019 until the date the premises are vacated. If not agreed then to be assessed.
3. The Defendant is to pay interest on the amounts outstanding at the rate of 5 % per annum from when liability arose until payment of the damages.
4. The Defendant is to pay the costs of the Claimant on the standard basis.	
		
Representation: 	Ms S K Teferomu for the Claimant 
Mr L Kwana  for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007 r 9.57, r9.59	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 341 of 2020

BETWEEN 

SOLOMON ISLANDS PORTS AUTHORITY 
Claimant 

AND

MOSTYN VAGURU
Defendant 

Date of Hearing: 29 September 2023
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2023

Ms S K Teferomu for the Claimant 
Mr L Kwana for the Defendant 
RULING 
1. 	The Defendant was an employee of the Claimant and had been provided with accommodation as part of his employment package with Claimant. He occupied a house owned by the Claimant being SK 8/2 on Parcel Number 191-024-0005 at Skyline in Central Honiara.
2. 	His employment came to an end on 31 December 2018 on his retirement. From that date he had no further entitlement to occupy the premises. He was requested to vacate but failed to do so. The Defendant alleged he had an outstanding financial entitlement which is disputed. Whether he had any such entitlement is irrelevant to the issue of occupying the premises. If he had a claim against the Claimant he could bring that claim regardless of where he was residing.
3. 	On 23 July 2020 the Claimant filed a claim to have the Defendant and those claiming through him removed from the property and that damages for trespass or in the alternative mesne profits be assessed if not agreed.
4. 	The Defendant failed to vacate the premises and his family have continued to unlawfully occupy the premises. The Claimant has filed an application for summary judgment. Counsel were directed to file submissions. Counsel have agreed that the Court should determine the matter on the papers as the facts are not in issue.
5. 	Rules 9.57 and 9.59 of the Solomon Islands Courts provide as follows:
	“9.57 The claimant may apply to the court for a summary judgment where the defendant has filed a response or a defence but the claimant believes that the defendant does not have any real prospect of defending the claimant's claim.
	9.59 A claimant's application for summary judgment must have with it a sworn statement that:
(a) 	verifies the facts stated in the claim; and
(b) 	states that the claimant believes there is no defence to the claim; and
(c) 	states the specific orders that are sought by the claimant.”
6. 	The Claimant has filed an application with a sworn statement in support which verifies the facts stated in the claim, that states the claimant believes there is no defence to the claim and states the specific orders that are sought by the claimant. Those matters are in accordance with rule 9.59. There is a further sworn statement deposing that the application was served on the Defendant on 9 August 2022 at 2.52pm.
7. 	The Court has considered the pleadings and agrees that there is no defence offered to the claim. Accordingly summary judgment is entered in terms of the claim.
8. 	The Defendant and his family have been illegally occupying the premises since 1 January 2019. The Claimant has been unable to provide the premises to another employee as a result. The Claimant is entitled to recover from the Defendant a reasonable market rent from assessed from 1 January 2019 through to the date the premises are vacated. If the parties cannot agree on what such damages are the case can be referred back to the Court to make an assessment.
Orders
1.	The Defendant and those who claim through him are to vacate the premises SK 8/2 on Parcel Number 191-024-0005 at Skyline in Central Honiara within 7 days of this order being served on them.
2.	The Defendant is to pay damages to the Claimant being a market rent from 1 January 2019 until the date the premises are vacated. If not agreed then to be assessed.  
3.	The Defendant is to pay interest on the amounts outstanding at the rate of 5 % per annum from when liability arose until payment of the damages.  
4.	The Defendant is to pay the costs of the Claimant on the standard basis.
By the Court
Hon. Justice Howard Lawry
Puisne Judge