HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Fota v Maximus International Ltd 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	3 August 2023	
		
Parties: 	Paul Fota v Maximus International Limited 	
		
Date of hearing: 	3 August 2023	
		
Court file number(s): 	127 of 2023	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Bird; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	I hereby dismiss the category B claim pursuant to r. 9.75 (c) of the CPR. The claimant/respondent is at liberty to reinstitute fresh proceeding in this cause. In light of the order for dismissal, I do not need to rule on the defendant/applicant’s application for joinder. I order cost against the claimant/respondent.	
		
Representation: 	Ms Sylvia Awicks for the Claimant 
Mr Lionel Puhimana for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007,r 3.6, r2.3 (b), r9.75 (c) 	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 127 of 2023

BETWEEN

PAUL FOTA 
(Representing Communities & Families of Totongo Village, Bugotu District, Isabel Province) 
Claimant 

AND:

MAXIMUS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 
Defendant 

Date of Hearing: 3rd August 2023
Date of Decision 3rd August 2023

Ms Sylvia Awicks for the Claimant 
Mr Lionel Puhimana for the Defendant 
RULING 
Bird PJ:
1. 	On 29 March 2023, the claimant filed a claim (category B) against the defendant for the following orders:
(a) 	Damages for public nuisance;
(b) 	The payment of SBD$992,250.00 for equipment and machinery storage fee and accommodation rentals at Tuotonga Village, Bugotu Village, Isabel Province, being for:
(i) 	Invoice No. 1 SBD$837,900.00 issued 3rd February 2023; and
(ii) 	Invoice No. 2 SBD$154,350.00 issued 11th February 2023
(c) 	Interest and costs;
(d) 	Any orders deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. 	The defendant in this case filed a response on 6 April 2023 and further filed an application for joinder under rule 3.6 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (CPR) and a sworn statement of Gabriel Maefiri on 8 May 2023. The matter was mentioned in court on 6 June 2023. When the matter was called then, the court raised the issue of damages for public nuisance and listed the application for joinder to 14 July 2023. The claimant/respondent was also directed to file and serve their response sworn statement by 20 June 2023.
3. 	That sworn statement was filed by the claimant/respondent on 22 June 2023 but was not served on the defendant/applicant until 13 July 2023, just one day before the matter was listed for hearing. Consequently the hearing listed for 14 July 2023 was adjourned by the court on application of the defendant/applicant. The hearing of the same was then fixed for 3rd August 2023.
4. 	On the 3rd August, the defendant/applicant made the application and Mr Puhimana of counsel relied upon his written submission and further made oral submission upon the application. Ms Awicks also handed up her written submission and made oral submission objecting to the application for joinder.
5. 	The court then interjected and enquired of counsel Ms Awicks if there is provided in the rules that a claim for damages for nuisance could be pleaded in a claim (category B). The court was of the view that since a claim for damages must be assessed by the court, it does not fall within the ambit of a claim (category B). To the view of the court, Ms Awicks had conceded. 
6. 	Under rule 2.3 (b) of the CPR, provides:
	r.2.3 (b) a claim for payment of a specific sum of money the amount of which is worked out or capable of being worked out by calculation, and includes a claim for interest up to judgment(in these rules called “a money claim”) (a category B proceeding).
7. 	It is obvious that the order sought in paragraph 1 of the orders sought in the claim of the claimant/respondent filed on 29 March 2023, does not fall within the above description of a category B claim. I hereby dismiss the category B claim pursuant to r. 9.75 (c) of the CPR. The claimant/respondent is at liberty to reinstitute fresh proceeding in this cause. In light of the order for dismissal, I do not need to rule on the defendant/applicant’s application for joinder. I order cost against the claimant/respondent.
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge