1985-1986 SILR 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

SOLOMON ISLANDS INVESTMENT LTD

V

KELAUPA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Freeman, Registrar)
Civil Case No. 5 of 1985

14 February 1985 at Honiara
Judgment 19 February 1985

Appeal – S.13 of Trade Disputes Act  ‑ s.84(1) of the Constitution  ‑ supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

Facts:

The appellant appealed against a decision of the Trade Dispute Panel mainly on the ground that the Panel erred in not granting an adjournment to the appellant which deprived the appellant of the right to be heard.

Held:

1.	The appellant's grounds of appeal failed to raise a question of law appealable under s. 13 of the Trade Disputes Act 1981.

2.	S.84(1) of the Constitution which gives the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts not confined to points of law does not confer jurisdiction to hear any appeal from any civil proceeding, but rather confines such jurisdiction to proceedings on applications for prerogative orders and under statutory powers of review. Accordingly, the appellant's remedy must be by way of certiorari and not by way of appeal.

Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

No cases considered

Andrew Nori for the Appellants
Kenneth Brown for the Respondents

John Freeman: This is an appeal against the decision of the Trade Disputes Panel given on 11 December 1984. The grounds are:

1. That the Panel erred in not granting an adjournment to the Appellant and in so doing it has deprived the said Appellant of the right to be heard.

2. That if the Appellant had been granted adjournment it would have successfully defended the claim.

The respondent made his claim for unfair dismissal under s.6(1) of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1982. By s.12(l) of the Act the appeal provisions in s.13 of the Trade Disputes Act 1981 are to apply. This allows an appeal "on any question of law." It was far from clear that the present appeal did involve a question of law, so I called on the appellants to show cause why it should be entertained.

The only way they argued it could be entertained was under the supervisory jurisdiction of s.84(l) of the Constitution, which is not confined to points  of law. (They cited Fugui & anor. v. Solmac & ors [1982] SILR 100 which did not help me, as it concerned the original jurisdiction of the High Court under s.77(l) to hear cases about customary land). S.84 (1) provides that "The High Court shall have jurisdiction to supervise any subordinate court….." I take it that if the framers of the Constitution had meant "to entertain any appeal from any civil proceedings", they would have said so. In my judgment, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under s.84(1) is confined to proceedings on applications for prerogative orders and under statutory powers of review.

It follows that this appeal cannot be entertained by the High Court. If the appellants' grievance is well-founded, their remedy must be by way of certiorari.

Appeal struck out.