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

Russell Islands Plantation Estates Ltd v Solomon Islands National Union of Workers [2009] SBHC 23; HCSI-CC 114 of 2009 (6 July 2009)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 114 of 2009

BETWEEN:

RUSSELL ISLANDS PLANTATION ESTATES LIMITED
1st Claimant

AND:

LEVER SOLOMONS LIMITED
2nd Claimant

AND:

SOLOMON ISLANDS NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS
1st Defendant

AND:

NATIONWIDE LIMITED
2nd Defendant

AND:

DAVID TUHANUKU
3rd Defendant

AND:

TONY KAGOVAI
4th Defendant

AND:

BARRY SAMSON
5th Defendant

AND:

REGINAL HILI KOKILI
6th Defendant

AND:

FISHER YOUNG LULU
7th Defendant

CLAUDIUS KABASI
CATHERINE APATO
HENRY APATO
ISAAC TALO
JOHN KOVILA PALMER
JASON ARMSTRONG MELAKE
JOHN STILL SORO
JAMES WALALA LAFFEREY
BILLY BELDEN
JOHN WANETALANA
NELSON ITA
SOLO KOSU
MICK ATALY
[Sued as representatives of former employees of the First Claimant
(Rule 3.37 of the Rules)

AND:

JOSEPH LEO
8th Defendant

AND:

OGE LAKENO
9th Defendant

AND:

WILLIE AFURAI
10th Defendant

AND

ANDREW KUVU
11th Defendant

(Mwanesalua, J.)

Hearing: 3 July 2009
Judgment:6 July 2009

Mr Nori for the Claimants
Ms M Bird for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

Mwanesalua J:

The First Defendant is a registered trade Union under the Trade Unions Act (Cap. 76). It was a party to an order made by this Court perfected and dated 23 June 2009. Its terms relevantly stated that:

"1. The First and Second Claimants are at liberty to send Management and Assessment Teams to Yandina and around Russell Islands in Central Islands Province, to carry out assessment and valuation work on current conditions of property and assets on their land;

2. The First to the Eleventh Defendants, their agents, associates, family members, servants, employees or contractors are restrained, until further orders, from –

(a) going within 100 meters distance from the team members;

(b) Talking to any of the team members;

(c) using swearing, abusive or insulting words or language at the team members or at any individual members of the team;

(d) acting in any hostile or threatening manner so as to cause fear in the minds of the team members; and

(e) holding or convening any meeting on the claimants’ property during the period of the team’s visit.

3. The First Defendant, within 24 hours from the date hereof, to send a radio service message through the SIBC advising the Seventh to the Tenth Defendants and their associates, family members and supporters on Russell Islands of the terms of paragraph 1 to 2 of these orders.

4. Breach of any of the terms of these orders constitutes contempt and is punishable by either fine or imprisonment or both".

On 1 and 3 July 2009, the Claimants returned to Court with an application for contempt of Court by the First Defendant. They say that the First Defendant has not complied with the order of the Court of 22 June 2009. They rely upon the Sworn Statement of their Counsel, Mr Nori in support of their application. The material paragraphs of that statement are as follows:

"1. I am the Solicitor in charge of this action o behalf of the Claimants.

2 The Court made an order perfected on 23 June 2009 which, inter alia, ordered the First Defendant to send a radio message through the SIBC advising the Seventh to the Tenth Defendants and their associates, family members and supporters on Russell Islands of the terms of paragraphs 1 to 2 thereof.

3. ..........................................

4. The orders were personally served by me at the First Defendants Solicitor’s Office at about 10am on the morning of 24th June 2009, together with a draft of the proposed radio message.

5. ...................................................

6. On the morning of 25th June 2009, I contacted the first Defendant’s Solicitor asking about the radio message. She said that she was not able to contact Tony Kagovai as he was ill.

7. On the 26th of June 2009 I again contacted the First Defendant’s Solicitor. She said that she and her client had gone through the draft message and that her client had signed the document with some minor changes. She promised to deliver the draft to my office later that day.

8. Up until today, I have not received the draft radio message.

9. No service message has been sent by the First Defendant as ordered.

10. I have since learned that the First Defendant is not willing to sign or send the radio message".

In a Sworn Statement by the General Secretary of the First Defendant to show cause why the First Defendant should not be punished for contempt, Tony Kagovai stated as follows:

"1. I am the General Secretary of the First Defendant and the person named as the Fourth Defendant.

2. With regard to the application for contempt of Court, I state that I did not deliberately disobey the order of 22nd June 2009.

3. As indicated above, as I am the General Secretary of the First Defendant, the signing of the Service Message would undermine my position as General-Secretary.

4. As the General Secretary, I am supposed to represent the interests of all employees who are members of the Union. My signing of the Service Message could be seen as a conflict of interest in my position.

5. It is possible that if I signed the Service Message, the workers would view it as if I was acting against their interests and I would be prone to adverse reactions by the employees.

6. It is also possible that I could be terminated from my employment by the SINUW Executive if I sign the Service Message as it could be seen by them as acting against the interests of the workers.

7. In view of the above, I seek leave of the Court to order that either John Whiteside or the Registrar of the High Court signs the said Service Message.

The General Secretary of the First Defendant says that his signing of the radio Service Message would be against the interests of their members. He did not disclose these interests to the Court. However, in his oral evidence in Court, he stated that the Defendants did not want Mr Whiteside nor the Management Team to visit Yandina. In the view of the Court, this is the reason for his refusal to sign the Service Message as alluded in the Sworn Statement of Mr Nori, on behalf of his clients. The General Secretary of the First Defendant withheld the draft Service Message after he discussed and amended it. He knew that it was a Court Order. He did nothing more about it until Mr Nori made a follow up on it. Failure to obey a Court Order amounts to a contempt under Chapter 23 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.

The administration of justice must not be obstructed, prevented, deflected and interfered with. Court orders must be obeyed. The Courts have power to impose punishment for contempt. The Courts are there to administer justice according to law. The Courts have made these statements about contempt of Court:

"The importance of it is this: of all the places where law and order must be maintained, it is here in the Courts. The course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it strike at the very foundations of our society."[1]

"The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our Courts the power effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented"[2]. "Where an order is made by a Court of Competent jurisdiction, it is the obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom the order is made, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged; the obligation extends to cases where the person affected by the order believes it to be irregular or void[3]."

This Court finds the First Defendant through its General-Secretary guilty of contempt when he neglected and disobeyed to sign and send the Service Message as ordered by the Court. Contempt of Court is a serious matter. It carries a maximum sentence of 3 months imprisonment. On the other hand, a corporate body may be ordered to pay a fine for it. The First Defendant will be fined accordingly.

Order of the Court:

1. The First Defendant is to pay a fine of $2,000.00 within 7 days of this order; and

2. That the First Defendant by its General-Secretary sign and send the Service Message within 24 hours from today, 6 July 2009, in compliance with the order of the Court perfected and dated 23 June 2009.

THE COURT

^[1]Morris v Crown Office [1970] 1ALL ER 1079 at 1081, CA, per Lord Denning
^[2] Ibid at 1087, per Salmon LJ
^[3] Yap v Tan and B & T Engineering Pty Ltd and Wong and Baptiste and Tau {PNCR} 1987 227; Hadkinson v Hadkonson [1952] 2 ALL ER 5677 and Check v Cremer {1846} [1846] EngR 924; 47 ER 820