IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 149 of 1997

WARREN PAIA

-v-

GOLDEN SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL (SI) CO. LIMITED AND NORTH NEW GEORGIA TIMBER CORPORATION

High Court of Solomon Islands 
(Muria, CJ.) 
Civil Case No. 149 of 1997 

Hearing: 27 October 1998 
Ruling: 27 October 1998 

D. McGuire for Applicants/Defendants 
N. Koroi & M. Bisili representatives of tribe owning KRHL 

MURIA CJ: By its application filed yesterday, 26 October 1998, by way of Summons, the first defendant seeks a stay of the orders of this Court made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Order made on 13 October 1998 pending appeal. The plaintiff was served of that application which was fixed for this morning (27 October 1998) to be heard by this Court only at 2.00pm yesterday afternoon. 

The plaintiff now asks that the first defendant’s application for stay be adjourned to an appropriate date to enable him to seek legal advice and assistance to properly meet the first defendant’s application for stay. Consequently the plaintiff is not able secure the attendance of his legal Counsel because of the short notice. 

There is power in the Court to do so. There is also power, in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to do so. 

The general rule is that a stay may be granted if it is known that if damages and costs were paid there is no reasonable possibility of getting them back if the appeal succeeds. In all these, is the exercise of court’s discretion. 

While I appreciate the defendants right of appeal in this case, I feel to proceed with the application for a stay at this stage without giving the plaintiff proper opportunity to defend his position would be unfair and would not be right in the circumstances of this case. This is not a case that has been brought to the Court for the first time. The parties have been in dispute since last year and I feel unless it is a matter of utmost urgency, notice of any application arising out of these proceedings must be properly served on the other party to enable them to respond to such application. 

The present instance is clearly one in which the Court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, would not allow the application for stay to proceed without giving the plaintiff proper opportunity to respond to it. The plaintiff has a valid judgment (until successfully challenged) in his favour and he must be given the opportunity to defend it. 

The fear of the fund being dissicated if paid pursuant to the Order of this Court, is adequately catered for by the undertaking from Counsel for the plaintiff. No prejudice would be caused to the first defendant if their application for stay is adjourned in this case. 

For those reasons, I agree to the plaintiff’s application to adjourn this matter to a date to be fixed which would properly enable the plaintiff to be properly represented when the first defendant’s application is heard. In this regard, direct that Counsel for both parties to agree a suitable date with the Registrar of High Court and the application can then be dealt with at that suitable date. 

There will be no costs of today’s hearing. 

(GJB Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE