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

Kerea v Earth Movers Solomon Ltd [2025] SBHC 43; HCSI-CC 413 of 2024 (27 March 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 413 of 2024

BETWEEN

JOHN KEREA
Claimant

AND:

EARTH MOVERS SOLOMON LIMITED
First Defendant

AND:

OSTA BRIGHT LIMITED
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 27 March 2025
Date of Ruling: 27 March 2025

Mr Lappy Hite for the Defendant

Pitakaka; PJ

EX-TEMPORE RULING ON APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Introduction and Background

1. The Claimants initiated legal action in the Claim (Category C) on 21 October 2024 against the Defendants.
2. The claimant asserts that the defendants unlawfully trespassed on his land (LR 95 in Perpetual Estate, Parcel Number 205-002-4, Aola, East Guadalcanal, Guadalcanal Province) by unauthorized use, road construction, and transporting logs without permission.
3. The Claimant is the registered owner of Parcel Number 205-002-4.
4. The claim seeks:
   1. “An order for damages for trespass to land legally described as LR 95 in the Perpetual Estate in Parcel Number 205-002-4 by the First and Second Defendants owned by Claimant situated at Aola, East Guadalcanal limited to SBD1, 800,000.00 on the basis for unlawful construction of road and unlawful or wrongful access to or use of the road to transport logs without permission contrary to common law of torts and to be jointly or severally liable by the First and Second Defendant.
   2. An order to permanently restrain or stop the First and Second Defendants, their servants, employees or agents from using, or accessing the road or transporting logs, timbers, machines, or equipment or any other materials through the road in the registered land described as LR 95 in Perpetual Estate in Parcel Number 205-002-4 owned by the Claimant.
   3. An order for interest of 5% of the judgment sum from the date of the order until paid.
   4. An order for costs of the claimants to be paid by the First and Second Defendant on indemnity basis.
   5. Such further or other orders as the court deems fit”.
5. The Claimant filed on 2 October 2024 a sworn statement in support of the Claim.
6. The Claim was further Amended on 17 October 2024 by leave of the court.
7. On 5 December the Court granted leave for the Claimant to serve the Second Defendant by way of substituted service.
8. The Claimant successfully served the Further Amended Claim on the Second Defendant through substituted service by delivering a copy to the First Defendant’s office and publishing a legal notice in the Island Sun newspaper on December 19, 2024, informing the Second Defendant about the claim. Michael Konia's sworn statement, filed on March 20, 2025, confirms this service.
9. Despite being served, the Second Defendant failed to file a defence. Consequently, on 20 March 2025, the Claimant applied for a default judgment.
10. The Claimants further supported the application with his sworn statement filed on 20 March 2025.
11. The Claimant withdraw the claim against the First Defendant on 20 March 2025.
12. The court determined the application on 27 March 2025 and granted default judgment in the following terms:
    1. The Second Defendant trespassed on LR 95 of Perpetual Estate Number 205-002-4.
    2. The Second Defendant, along with their servants, employees, or agents, is restrained by a permanent injunction from using or accessing the road or transporting logs, timbers, machines, equipment, or any other materials through the road on the registered land described as LR 95 in Perpetual Estate 205-002-4, which is owned by the Claimant.
    3. The Claimant shall be at liberty to apply for assessment of damages in respect of the trespass against the Second Defendant.
    4. Cost shall be on indemnity basis against the Second Defendant
13. The court now provides its reasoning of the default judgment.

Issue 1: Entitlement to Default Judgment

14. The applicable rules under Chapter 9 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007, particularly Rule 9.17, govern default judgments.
15. Rule 9.17 allows a claimant to seek default judgment if the Defendant fails to respond or file a defence within the timeframe specified in Rule 5.37.
16. Rule 9.22 allows the Court to enter judgment in favor of the claimant without holding a hearing.
17. Rule 9.24 authorizes the court to award the claimed sum, interest, and costs.
18. Rule 9.31 allows the claimant to file for default judgement to be entered against the Defendant under rule 9.22 and damages to be assessed by the court.
19. Here, the Second Defendant failed to file a response or defence, justifying the Claimants’ application for default judgment.
20. The Claimant met all procedural requirements under these rules, as supported by sworn statements of Claimant filed on 20 March 2025 and proof of service sworn statement of Michael Konia filed on 20 March 2025.
21. Thus, the court finds the Claimant is entitled to default judgment and damages to be assessed by the court upon hearing evidence.

Issue 2: Discretion to Grant Default Judgment

22. While default judgment is discretionary, the court must ensure it is fair and justified based on the claim’s nature.
23. Case precedents such as Lethy & Siako v. Luluku & Others^[1], QQQ Holdings Ltd v. Honiara City Council ^[2] and Sukumaran v. Pillai^[3] show that default judgment is inappropriate where declaratory relief is sought and if jurisdictional issues or complex legal matters require trial consideration.
24. In this case, the pleadings and the Claimant’s sworn statements filed on March 20, 2025, in support of the application, and on October 2, 2024, in support of the claim clearly establish that the Claimant holds registered ownership of the perpetual estate in Parcel Number 205-002-4. The evidence also confirms that the logging road complained of is located within Parcel Number 205-002-4, and that the Second Defendant used the road for the activities the Claimant has rightfully complained about in the claim.
25. The Second Defendant, despite being duly served, failed to file a defence.
26. The court finds no jurisdictional or substantive legal barriers preventing judgment.
27. The court therefore determined that default judgment in the circumstance is both just and appropriate.

Awarding Indemnity Costs

28. Rule 9.24(c) entitle the claimant to recover costs from the defendant.
29. The Second Defendant deliberately ignored the claim, making the claimant to pursue default judgment, which in the court’s view justifies an award of indemnity costs.
30. For these reasons, the court exercises its discretion to impose indemnity costs on the Second Defendant, as the claimant has requested.

Final Orders

31. The court orders as follows:
    1. The Second Defendant trespassed on the Claimant's land, legally described as LR 95 in the Perpetual Estate in Parcel Number -4 at Aola, East Guadalcanal, by unlawfully accessing the land, constructing roads, and using them to transport logs without permission.
    2. The Second Defendant, along with their servants, employees, or agents, is permanently restrained from using or accessing the roads or transporting logs, timbers, machines, equipment, or any other materials through the roads on the registered land described as LR 95 in Perpetual Estate 205-002-4, owned by the Claimant.
    3. The Claimant shall be at liberty to apply for assessment of damages in respect of the trespass against the Second Defendant.
    4. Cost shall be on indemnity basis against the Second Defendant.

DATED this 21st of March, 20254.
By the Court
Hon. Justice Michael Collin Pitakaka
Puisne Judge of the High Court

^[1] [1998] SBHC 13; HC-CC 104 of 1996 (23 February 1998), Awich J

^[2] [2003] SBHC 18; HC-CC 039 of 2003 )1 May 2003), Kabui J

[3] [2013] SBHC 153; HCSI-CC 396 of 2012 (20 November 2013), Apaniai J