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

Manedika v Glengrow (SI) Co Ltd [2024] SBHC 139; HCSI-CC 497 of 2023 (10 October 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 497 of 2023

BETWEEN

MARK MANEDIKA
(Representing himself and family members living within and outside Maliumu Land)
Claimant

AND:

GLENGROW (SI) COMPANY LIMITED
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 10 October 2024
Date of Ruling: 10 October 2024

Ms. S. Avicks for the Claimant (no appearance)
Mr. L. Kwaiga for the Defendant

RULING ON CLAIM STRUCK OUT

1. The matter was listed for mention this afternoon. Only counsel for the Defendant appeared in Court. Court did not receive any information from the Claimant’s counsel about her nonattendance. Notice to attend to this matter was sent by the High Court through respective counsel’s email address.
2. It is the duty of practicing lawyers to attend to the Court when the case is listed for mention or hearing. They also have the duty to advise the Court of their nonattendance to the matter so that proper Directions can be issued in the proceeding. In this case, the Claimant’s counsel has failed to inform the Court either by email or phone call. This, in my view, shows a total dereliction of her duty to the Court.
3. On 29 July 2024, I issued the following Directions:
   1. Claimant to file and serve Reply to Defence by 5 August 2024;
   2. Parties to file sworn list of documents by 19 August 2024;
   3. Parties to do inspection of documents by 2 September 2024;
   4. Interrogatories, if any, by 23 September 2024;
   5. Answers, if any, by 7 October 2024;
   6. Matter is adjourned to 14 October 2024 at 1:30pm for mention; and
   7. Cost in the cause.
4. The mention date in Order 6 above was, however, changed from 14 October 2024 at 1:30pm to 10 October 2024 at 1:30pm. The advice regarding the change of the mention date was sent by the High Court by way of the Court’s List through counsels’ email addresses.
5. I have checked the Court’s file and noted that there was no filing of the Reply to Defence by the Claimant as required in Order 1 of the Directions. As a result, the rest of the Directions were not complied with. The need to file the Reply to Defence by 5 August 2024 as ordered in the Direction was in fact requested by the Claimant’s counsel after the Court had set aside an Unless Order issued on 15 July 2024 that required the Claimant to file and serve Reply to Defence by 22 July 2024. Hence, the history of the case shows the Claimant on two occasions had failed to comply with the Court’s Order to file and serve Reply to Defence.
6. The Defendant’s counsel verbally applied to strike out the claim based on those above stated reasons. I understand that Claimant’s counsel was not present when the application to strike out the matter was heard.
7. I am conscious of the principle of natural justice and procedural fairness that accord the right of the Claimant to be heard in Court. However, it is also incumbent upon the Claimant to comply with the Directions of the Court, and more importantly, to be present in Court to exercise that right to be heard. As such, the right to be heard will be forfeited if the Claimant fails to comply with the Court Directions or fails to attend to Court after having been informed or notified of the mention date.
8. The Claimant must understand that the need to progress the case without delay in a civil case is a statutory undertaking. Rule 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.8 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 recognized the need to expedite the matter with due speed and diligence. That means, the Claimant must take all necessary steps to prosecute the matter without delay and to bring it to finality. One of the Claimant’s responsibilities is to comply with the Direction Orders. This is part of the due diligence requirement. Direction Orders are orders of the Court. They are meant to be complied with. The nature of the Direction Orders issued on 29 July 2024 requires counsels to comply with the Directions in order to progress the matter with minimal delay. The Claimant is a party who should begin that process before the rest of the Directions can be performed or follow suit. Unfortunately, that did not occur.
9. I have considered the Defendant’s submission to strike out the entire proceeding. I agree with counsel’s submission. It is my view that in light of the Claimant’s counsel’s non-attendance in Court this afternoon without any explanations, together with her failure to comply with Order 1 of the Directions dated 29 July 2024 to file and serve Reply to Defence by 5 August 2024, I hereby strike out this claim under Rule 9.71 and 9.72 (a) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. Costs of this proceeding are to be paid to the Defendant on standard basis.

Orders of the Court

1. The claim is struck out pursuant to Rule 9. 71 and 9. 72 (a) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
2. The Claimant to pay costs of this proceeding to the Defendant on standard basis.

THE COURT
Augustine S. Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE