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

Watson v Otuana [2005] SBHC 50; HCSI-CC 473 of 2004 (23 March 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 473 of 2004

RAYMOND WATSON

-V-

NINAMO OTUANA

Honiara: Brown J

Date of Hearing: 23 March 2005
Date of Judgment: 23 March 2005

Ex parte summons for orders in nature of mandamus

(No appearance by either party)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Brown J: This ex parte summons was listed before me this day but no appearances were made for the plaintiff or defendant.

The summons sought in effect orders for interim preservation of property about which a question may arise in the proceedings, although it was couched in this form:

“For leave of the court for the plaintiff to apply for mandamus orders to compel the defendant to surrender all the ANAUTO Pty Ltd machineries and equipments as specified in the plaintiff’s affidavit to the Gizo Police for preservation until further orders of the court”.

In a cursory reading of the statement pursuant to 0.6 R 2(2) it appears the cause relates to a dispute over logging and milling machinery brought into the country by the plaintiff and defendant, perhaps in accordance with an agreement between them both. The defendant is described as “a naturalized Australian of Solomon Island origin”.

On the face of the statement, mandamus cannot lie in such a case.

The plaintiff is described as an Australian businessman, residing and doing business at PO Box 641, Caloundra, Queensland, Australia. The statement further recounts that the parties entered into an agreement and by that agreement incorporated a company ANAUTO Pty Ltd (whether in Australia or in the Solomon Islands is not stated) “of which partners held equal shares of 5 each of the 10 registered shares”.

If this is a dispute arising out of problems within the company, normally the company is the proper plaintiff and able to enforce duties owed to it.

If this plaintiff is a “representative plaintiff” this should be pleaded

There are no pleadings, statement of claim nor summons asserting a cause of action.

Perhaps this is a contractual dispute, but it is not for the court to seek to find a cause of action on the material filed, including an affidavit by the Australian resident plaintiff. The matter suffers from a lack of understanding of the requirements of the Rules of Court in relation to commencement of proceedings.

In the absence of appearance and on its face, proper originating process disclosing a cause of action, this ex-parte summons must be struck out.

I further direct that no further process or steps be taken in this matter without the leave of the court, on motion supported by proper originating process in compliance with Rules of Court.

BY THE COURT