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

Taro v Earth Movers Solomon's Ltd [2024] SBHC 187; HCSI-CC 572 of 2023 (28 October 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 572 of 2023

BETWEEN:

CHIEF DICKSON TARO, MANGA TOROHAKO & ELTON AETAI
(Representing the Maar Auhenua tribe, Arosi 2, Makira/Ulawa Province, Solomon Islands)
Claimant

AND:

EARTH MOVERS SOLOMON’S LIMITED
First Defendant

AND:

WOOD ECO, LUMBER COMPANY LIMITED
Second Defendant

AND:

AROSI VISION LINK SERVICES LIMITED
Third Defendant

AND:

ISAAC MARU
(Representing Amaeo tribe, Arosi 2, West Makira, Makira/Ulawa Province, Solomon Islands)
Fourth Defendant

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF FORESTS RESOURCES
Fifth Defendant

Date of Hearing: 28 October 2024
Date of Ruling: 28 October 2024

Mr. B. Alasia for the Claimant (no attendance)
Mr. S. Kabau for the First Defendant
Mr. J. Devesi for the Fifth Defendant

RULING

AULANGA; PJ:

1. This is the second time counsel for the Claimant, Ben Alasia, failed to appear for this matter. The first occasion was on 26^th August 2024 and again today. On the first occasion, I issued the following directions for compliance:
   1. The Fifth Defendant is to file and serve request for further and better particulars by 27^th August 2024.
   2. The Claimant is to provide answers to the request for further and better particulars by 10^th September 2024.
   3. The First and Fifth Defendant are given leave to file and serve defence by 23^rd September 2024
   4. The Claimant is to file and serve reply by 7^th October 2024.
   5. Matter is adjourned for mention on the 14^th October 2024 at 1:30pm.
2. Those orders were filed on 27^th August 2024 and served on the parties.
3. The matter was rescheduled for mention on 28^th October 2024 at 1:30pm with notices to attend for mention being sent to all counsels. Having notified, counsels for the First and Fifth Defendant did attend when the matter was called for mention. Counsel for the Claimant did not attend and offered no reason for his absenteeism.
4. The Claimant did not comply with Order 2. This affected the Fifth Defendant from complying with Order 3. There was no explanation by the Claimant’s counsel regarding his noncompliance to the Orders and moreover, for his failure to attend to the matter on those two occasions. The conduct of the Claimant’s counsel for failing to comply with the Court Order and also for his nonattendance to this matter on two occasions show gross negligence on his legal duty to represent his client in Court and his duty to attend to the Court as and when the matter was listed for mention. Whether this is something to do with attitude or sheer ignorance or a wanton disregard to appear for the case, this has no place in this Court.
5. The Claimant’s counsel should inform the Court through writing if he is unable to comply with the Court Orders or is unable to attend to the matter at the mention date. This should be a rule of thumb for practicing lawyers in this jurisdiction.
6. As a result of the Claimant’s noncompliance to the Orders and his failure to attend to this matter on the second occasion, this entire proceeding is struck out pursuant to rule 9.71 and 9.72 (b) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure Rules) 2007. Costs to be paid by the Claimant to the First and Fifth Defendants on standard basis.

Orders of the court

1. The entire proceeding is struck out pursuant to rule 9.71 and 9.72 (b) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure Rules) 2007.
2. Costs to be paid by the Claimant to the First and Fifth Defendants on standard basis.

Augustine S. Aulanga

PUINE JUDGE