HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Solong Sea Food Development Ltd v Attorney General 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	29 November 2024	
		
Parties: 	Solong Sea Food Development Limited v Attorney General, Choylin Yim Douglas, and Choylin Yim Douglas, Attorney General Solong Sea Food Development Limited 	
		
Date of hearing: 	31 October 2024	
		
Court file number(s): 	101 of 2017	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Kouhota; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. Extension of 14 days granted for Claimant to file submission.
2. Court to rule after receiving the submission.
3. Cost in the cause.	
		
Representation: 	Lepe S for the Claimant/Respondent 
Muaki for the First Defendant/ Applicant 
Nimepo for the Second Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 101 of 2017

BETWEEN:

SOLONG SEA FOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD
Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL 
(Representing the Commissioner of Lands & Registrar of Titles
First Defendant

AND:

CHOYLIN YIM DOUGLAS
Second Defendant

AND: By way OF Cross Claim

BETWEEN:

CHOYLIN YIM DOUGLAS
Cross Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
 (Representing the Commissioner of Lands and Registrar of Titles)
First Cross Defendant

AND:

SOLONG SEA FOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD
Second Cross Defendant

Date of Hearing: 31 October 2024
Date of Ruling: 29 November 2024

For the Claimant/Respondent: Lepe S
For the First Defendant/Applicant: Muaki 
For the Second Defendant: Nimepo 
RULING ON APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SUBMISSION 
Kouhota PJ: 
On 14th September 2017, an application to determine a preliminary question of law and fact was filed by the Claimant. The application sought orders that-
(a) 	The title in parcel number 098-009-19 be rectified in favour of the Claimant
(b) 	Alternatively, enter summary judgment for the Claimant against the Second Defendant.
The application also raised the following issues;
(a) 	On 3rd November 2017, a consent judgment was filed between the Claimant and the First Defendant and the consent judgment was perfected on 27th March 2018.
(b) 	In light of the consent judgement, the forfeiture is deemed void;
(c) 	The second defendant argue that they still have a valid title;
(d) 	The question for determination is:
(i) 	Whether the Second Defendant’s claim to have taken title lawfully in light of the consent judgment the forfeiture procedure has been declared void,
(ii) 	Consequently, any transactions including the grant of title and registration of the same on the Second Defendant is illegal, void and have no effect.
The Court heard the matter on 4th May 2022 and set the Ruling to be delivered on 15th May 2022, however, the Judge identified issues which need further clarification, hence adjourn the matter and directed counsels to make written submission on the following;-
(a) 	Whether the consent judgment signed by the parties and endorsed by the court is a final judgment. If the answer is yes, does the court has power to later set it aside?
(b) 	If there was an error by the High Court in endorsing the consent judgment, can the court the Court correct its own error?
The Court directed counsels to file their submissions within 14 days and the Court will make its ruling based on the submissions.
The Second Defendant filed its written submission on 23rd May 2022 but the Claimant and the First Defendant did not filed their submissions.
This is an application by the Claimant filed on 11th October 2024 seeking an extension of time to file its written submission. The Applicant seek an order to file its submission 14 days after the ruling on this application.
The Applicant in support of its application relied on the sworn statement of Mr Martin Chen and Maria Fa’arodo both filed on 11th October 2024. In his sworn Mr Chen stated that the Claimant was previously represented by Rano and Company and counsel representing them had failed to file any submissions as order by the Court on 15th May 2022. Based on Mr Chen’s sworn statement it is clear that their former Solicitor had not filed any written submission as order by the Court on 15th May 2022. The matter is now taken over by the current Solicitor who has filed this application. It clear that the failure to file the submission was made by the Claimant’s previous Solicitor.
Application for extension of time under the rules are provided for specific situations such application for extension of time to file defence. This is because the rules had set time limit in which certain actions must be taken.
In regard to the Claimants application I consider it a general application because the rules had not put a time limit on when submissions should be filed. In that respect, the Court in exercising its discretion in deciding whether it should grant extension or not, the Court inter-alia would take into consideration the reasons for the delay, whether the Applicant contributed to the delay and whether the other party will be prejudice by granting extension of time.
In the present case, I noted that order to file submission was made on 15th May 2022 that is a long time from the time the application was filed. However, I consider that the Applicant did not contribute to the delay but his lawyers who had failed him and caused the delay. It would therefore, be unfair to the Applicant to penalise him for a delay he did not cause or contribute to.
After considering the application and the submissions of counsels, I am of the view that the legal question raised in this matter are important and the Court must consider and rule on them. I also consider that the other party would not be prejudice if the application is granted. For these reasons, the Court grant the application and order the Applicant file submission within 14 days from date of this order. Cost in cause.
Orders.
1.	Extension of 14 days granted for Claimant to file submission.
2.	Court to rule after receiving the submission.
3.	Cost in the cause.
THE COURT
Emmanuel Kouhota
Puisne Judge