HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	JJ Ltd v Commissioner of Lands 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	15 October 2025 	
		
Parties: 	JJ Limited v Commissioner of Lands, Registrar of Titles, Dolaries Sauwati 	
		
Date of hearing: 	15 October 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	675 of 2021	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Bird; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	i) 	The Claimant’s Claim filed on the 20th November 2021 is hereby dismissed under rule 9.3 and 9.14 of the CPR).
ii) 	I also order cost against the Claimant.	
		
Representation: 	Mr Billy Titiulu for the Claimant (No Appearance)
Mr Pamela Rofeta for the First and Second Defendants
Mrs Nuatali A Tongarutu for the Third Defendant	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule, r9.13 (a) and (b), 9.14, 9, r 1.13 and 1.14	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case NO. 675 of 2021

BETWEEN:

JJ LIMITED
Claimant

AND:

COMMISSIONER OF LANDS
First Defendant

AND:

REGISTRAR OF TITLES 
Second Defendant

AND:

DOLARIES SAUWATI
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 8 October 2025
Date of Decision: 15 October 2025

Mr Billy Titiulu for the Claimant (No Appearance)
Mr Pamela Rofeta for the First and Second Defendants
Mrs Nuatali A Tongarutu for the Third Defendant
RULING ON APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING 
Bird PJ:
1. 	This proceeding is commenced by JJ Limited (Claimant) alleging mistake and fraud in relation to the process of the registration of Parcel Number 191-029-201. It is alleged that the Commissioner of Lands (1st Defendant) with the Registrar of Titles (2nd Defendant) and Dolaries Sauwati’s (3rd Defendant) actions in the registration process was procured with mistake and fraud. The person behind the Claimant’s claim is Mr Peter Chow.
2. 	The proceeding was commenced on the 23rd November 2021. By the 17th August 2023, it was ready for trial and an agreed court trial book was filed. A date for trial was fixed for the 12th October 2023. On that date, counsel for the Claimant was ill and another trial date was fixed for the 15th November 2023.
3. 	On the 15th November, the matter was called again. The Claimant’s witness, Mr Chow was required by the defendants for cross-examination. The court was informed by counsel that Mr Chow was not available. He was in Australia and was unable to travel to Honiara. He had a medical condition. Counsel intends to tender Mr Chow’s sworn statement as evidence in the trial. That intention was objected to by the Defendants which led to an application under section 118 of the Evidence Act 2009.
4. 	The application was listed for hearing on the 29th May 2024. The hearing did not proceed as the 3rd Defendant’s counsel was ill. It was then adjourned to the 18th June 2024 for oral submissions. On that date, the Claimant’s counsel applied for an adjournment and no oral submissions were made. The matter was further adjourned to the 18th July 2024.
5. 	On the above date, the Claimant’s counsel informed the court that he will hand over his client’s file to Mr Hapa of Pacific Lawyers. Matter was further adjourned to the 1st August 2024 for the Claimant to appear with new counsel. On the mentioned date, neither the Claimant nor Mr Hapa appeared. It was called again on the 22nd October 2024. There was no appearance of the Claimant or Mr Hapa.
6. 	On the 29th October 2024 and upon non-appearance of the Claimant or counsel, their application filed on the 21st November 2023 was dismissed for want of prosecution. That had led to the 3rd Defendant’s application for dismissal of proceeding pursuant to rule 9.13 (a) and (b) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (CPR).
 Application
7. 	The 3rd Defendant’s application and supporting sworn statement was personally served on Mr Peter Chow on the 19th November 2024. The Claimant through Mr Chow did not file any response until the 12th June 2025 when Mr Billy Titiulu made appearance in court for the Claimant. Mr Titiulu was directed to file a notice of change of advocate.
8. 	By the next appearance on the 8th July, Mr Titiulu has yet to file the notice.  He was further directed to file the notice by the 9th July. Further direction was given in which the Claimant was required to file sworn statement by the 15th July. Matter was adjourned to the 29th July. Mr Titiulu made no appearance on that date. Time was extended for him to file the Claimant’s sworn statement. The court adjourned the matter to the 20th August for hearing of the application.
9. 	On the above date, Mr Titiulu was on compassionate leave and a fresh hearing date was fixed for the 8th October. Neither Mr Titiulu nor Mr Chow appeared in court on the day. The court proceeded to hear the 3rd Defendant’s application in their absence. It is noted that by then, Mr Titiulu has yet to file a notice of change of advocate and a sworn statement from his client.
10. 	The 3rd Defendant’s application is premised upon the fact that the Claimant has failed to prosecute their claim expeditiously. Pursuant to r. 9.13 (a) and (b) of the CPR, a defendant may make application for dismissal of a claimant’s claim if the claimant is required to take a step in the proceeding required by these rules, or to comply with an order of the court, not later than the end of a particular time and does not do what is required before the end of that time.
11. 	Under r. 9.14 of the rules, the court has a discretion to dismiss the proceeding or make any other order it considers appropriate. 
12. 	I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs the sequence of events in this proceeding. When the Claimant’s application under s.118 of the Evidence Act was filed, Mr Peter Chow was under medical care in Australia. Since that time, he had travelled back to Honiara. He was personally served with the 3rd Defendant’s application and supporting sworn statement at Hongsun School in Honiara on the 19th November 2024. He acknowledged service of the documents by signing in the document marked “DS” to the 3rd Defendant’s sworn statement filed on the 18th March 2025.
13. 	Since Mr Chow was in Honiara from 2024 to this day, he could have pushed to have his claim heard and determined by the court. In the absence of any evidence from Mr Chow, the court could take it that he has made no attempt to pursue the claim.
14. 	It is further noted that having being served with the 3rd Defendant’s application, he could have filed responses and sworn statements. It is also noted that from the date of service on him to the date of hearing of this application, there was no document filed by the Claimant.
15. 	Directions orders were made on the 12th June and extended until the 20th August 2025. None of the orders were complied with. On the hearing date, Mr Titiulu and Mr Chow did not make any appearance in court. No reason was given for their absence.
16. 	It is therefore obvious to the court that the Claimant has failed to prosecute their claim expeditiously. The Claimant has also failed to contest the 3rd Defendant’s application. 
17. 	In view of the above discussions, I am satisfied that the Claimant has failed to prosecute their claim under rule 9.13 (a) and (b) of the CPR. Having said that, I will also take note of rule 1.13 and 1.14 of the rules. These rules detail the objective of the rules. They were enacted to enable the courts to deal with cases justly with minimum delay and expense.
18. 	This proceeding was initially listed for trial on the 15th November 2023. Due to various reasons and more especially the Claimant’s failure to have the matter tried, nothing was done to further progress it until the 3rd Defendant’s application was filed on the 19th November 2024. There was a delay of more than 1 year to have the matter tried. I am therefore of the view that a delay of more than 1 year operates contrary to rules 1.13 and 1.14 of the CPR. I hereby order that the Claimant’s Claim filed on the 20th November 2021 is dismissed under rules 9.13 and 9.14 of the rules. I also order cost against the Claimant.
19. 	In passing, I have noted that on the 29th July 2025, I directed that the Claimant and the 3rd Defendant’s respective applications would be heard together. Having properly perused the court file, the Claimant’s application was dismissed for want of prosecution on the 29th October 2024. In view of that position, I need not discuss that application in this ruling.
20. 	Orders of the court:-
i) 	The Claimant’s Claim filed on the 20th November 2021 is hereby dismissed under rule 9.3 and 9.14 of the CPR).
ii) 	I also order cost against the Claimant.
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge