HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Zezemu v Attorney General 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	27 January 2025	
		
Parties: 	Codrington Zezemu, Redley Theome, Kingless Sanai and Zevini Kaita v Attorney General, Hugo Ladia 	
		
Date of hearing: 	27 January 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	370 of 2024	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Pitakaka; PJ 	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The Claim (Category C) Judicial Review filed on 17/9/24 is struck out for want of prosecution; and
2. The claimant is to pay the cost to the First Defendant on the standard basis to be taxed if not agreed.	
		
Representation: 	Mrs B Muaki for the First Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 370 of 2024

BETWEEN:

CODRINGTON ZEZEMU, REDLEY THEOME, KINGLESS SANAI AND
ZEVINIKI KAITA
Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL 
(Representing the Isabel Customary Land Appeal Court)
First Defendant

AND: 

HUGO LADIA
(Representing himself and members of the
Sugatoga clan, Vihuvunagi tribe Second Defendant
Second Defendant 

Date of Hearing: 27 January 2025
Date of Ruling: 27 January 2025

Mrs B Muaki for the First Defendant

Pitakaka; PJ
RULING 
Introduction
1. 	This is the ruling of striking out these proceedings for want of prosecution of the Claimant.
Background
2. 	The Claimant through their solicitors Messrs. Togamae Lawyers, Barristers and Solicitors, filed a Judicial Review Claim on 17/9/24. The Claim seeks orders, inter alia, an order declaring the decision of the Isabel Province customary Land Appeal court delivered on 21/6/24 be quashed and a declaration that the decision of the Isabel Province executive dated 19/7/23 and published on 23/7/23 be upheld. The evidence in the sworn statement of Gideon Khale was filed on 17/9/24 in support of the Judicial Review Claim.
3. 	The matter was listed for mention court hearing on 17/10/24. At this mention the lawyer representing the Claimants did not appear. The Court adjourned the matter for 7 days to 24/10/24 so that directions is to be made to progress the matter to Chapter 15 conference.
4. 	The matter was listed for mention court hearing again 24/10/24. At this mention court hearing the lawyer representing the Claimant also did not appear. At this mention hearing the Court noting the lawyer of the claimant did not appear and made the following directions:
1..	The Claimant to serve the sworn statement of Gideon Khale filed on 17/9/24 on the Attorney General representing the First Defendant within 7 days by 31/10/24;
2.	The First and Second Defendants to file and serve their respective defences within 14 days thereafter by the 14/11/24;
3.	The matter is set down for mention on 28/11/24 at 1.30 pm with the view of setting a date for the hearing Chapter 15 conference; and
4.	Cost in the cause.
5. 	The Orders of the Court of 24/10/24 was perfected, signed and sealed on 25/10/25.
6. 	The matter came again for mention court hearing on 28/11/24. Again, the lawyer representing the Claimant did not appear on this mention court hearing date. The court noting that the lawyer of the Claimant did not appear on two consecutive mentions prior to this mention court hearing made the following direction orders:
1.	Unless the Claimant serve the Sworn Statement of Gideon Khale filed on the 17/9/24 on the Attorney General representing the First Defendant within 14 days or by 12/12/24 the Claim (Category C) Judicial Review filed on 17/9/24 shall be struck out for want of prosecution;
2.	The First Defendant to file and serve Defence and Sworn Statement in Support of the Defence within 14 days thereafter or by 26/12/24;
3.	The matter is set down for Chapter 15 conference on 27/1/25 at 9.30 am; and 
4.	Cost in the cause.
7. 	The Order of the court made on 28/11/24 was perfected, signed and sealed on 29/11/24.
8. 	On 27/1/25 at 9.30 am the matter was listed for Chapter 15 conference before the court. The Lawyer representing the Claimant again did not appear. The Court finds at the hearing that the Order 1 of the court Order made on 28/8/24, perfected, signed and sealed on 29/11/24 was not complied with. The effect of the noncompliance of that order being an unless order is that the Claim (category C) Judicial Review filed on 17/9/24 shall be struck out for want of prosecution.
ORDERS:
1.	The Claim (Category C) Judicial Review filed on 17/9/24 is struck out for want of prosecution; and
2.	The claimant is to pay the cost to the First Defendant on the standard basis to be taxed if not agreed.
DATED this 27th of January 2025.
BY THE COURT
Hon. Justice Michael Collin Pitakaka
Puisne Judge of the High Court