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

Hanupauro v Harupere [2024] SBHC 157; HCSI-CC 302 of 2024 (14 November 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 302 of 2024

BETWEEN:

CHRIS HANUPAURO and LEON THOMAS MANEHOUA
(Representing the Manumanunaihatare sub tribe or clan, West Are’Are,
Malaita Province)
Claimants

AND:

BERNARD HARUPER
(Representing himself, family members and his associates)
First Defendant

AND:

DONATION HATAIWAPU

(Representing himself, family members and his associates)
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 14 November 2024
Date of Decision: 14 November 2024

Mr Michael Ipo for the Claimants
Mr Chris Rarumae for the First and Second Defendants

RULING ON APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Bird PJ:

1. This claim is one for trespass and damages. Mr Chris Hanupauro and Mr Leon Thomas Manehoua Claimants) are representatives of their Manumanunaihatare sub tribe or clan in West Are’Are, Malaita Province. They were awarded ownership over Manumanunaihatare land, commonly known as Urusu’u land (the disputed land) by the Po’oikera House of Chiefs in 2012. Mr Bernard Harupere was the defendant in the chiefs hearing.
2. Being aggrieved with the decision of the house of chiefs, Mr Harupere referred the dispute to the Malaita Local Court. In about 26 June 2019, the Malaita Local Court dismissed his referral and confirmed the decision of the Po’oikera House of Chiefs. There was no appeal lodged by Mr Harupere against the decision of the Malaita Local Court.
3. In about June 2024, Mr Donation Hataiwapu commenced milling activities on the disputed land. Upon enquiries by Mr Hanupauro with Mr Hataiwapu, he was told that he was authorised by Mr Harupere to conduct milling therein. The Claimants have not consented nor have authorised Mr Hataiwaru to do milling on the disputed land.
4. The claim of the Claimants was filed on 2 August 2022. Interim ex parte orders were perfected on 8 August 2024. I am told that apart from paragraph 1 of the orders, the rest of the orders were not complied with.
5. Mr Hanupauro and Mr Hataiwapu were personally served with the claim, the response form, the interim ex parte orders and all filed documents on 11 August 2024 at their respective villages. From that date till today, they have not filed their response nor their defences.
6. On 15 August 2024, the matter was called for mention. Mr Chris Rarumae entered appearance for both defendants. Since then, no notice of legal representation was filed by Mr Rarumae. In any event, he continued to appear for both of them on several other occasions.
7. The interim orders were extended. The defendants were directed to file and serve any sworn statements and their defences by 30 August 2024. The matter was then adjourned to 13 September 2024 for inter partes hearing.
8. On that date, the defendants have not been able to comply with prior direction orders. Time was extended for them to file sworn statements and their defences to 20 September 2024. The interim orders were also extended by consent. The matter was adjourned to 8 October 2024 for inter partes hearing.
9. On 8 October, the defendants have not filed away sworn statements nor defence. They nonetheless filed an application to stay the proceeding with supporting sworn statements. The basis of their application was the dispute between the parties have been referred to the chiefs. A hearing date was yet to be fixed. Mr Rarumae was informed that the application for stay was misconceived and could not be sustained because the same dispute between parties have been decided by the Malaita Local Court and no appeal was lodged against the decision.
10. Thereafter the Claimants filed two applications being for contempt of court and for default judgment. Directions were made to progress the applications for hearing. Mr Rarumae and the defendants were given until 5 November 2024 to file and serve their responses and supporting sworn statements. The hearing was listed on 14 November 2024. There was non-compliance again by Mr Rarumae and the defendants.
11. On the hearing date, Mr Rarumae was not in attendance. He gave no reason for not attending. I was told by Mr Ipo of counsel for the Claimants that he received a text message from Mr Rarumae before he came to court. He said he was unable to attend court because he is in a week long marriage ceremony and celebration. Mr Ipo advised that he was ready to proceed in Mr Raumae’s absence.
12. Upon my enquiry, Mr Ipo told me he served both applications on Mr Rarumae at his office. I was then of the view that I can only deal with the application for default judgment. I will not hear the application for contempt of court because the defendant were merely served through counsel. They were not personally served with the application.
13. As per the application for default judgment, counsel relies upon the application, supporting sworn statements and the sworn statement of Steve Hunuina filed on 15 August 2024 as to proof of service.
14. Under rule 9.17 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (CPR), the requirement that I must be satisfied with is proof of service of the claim on the defendants.
15. Having discussed the chronology of events relating to this proceeding and having perused the file and having noted Mr Rarumae’s admissions in court that there was no defence filed on behalf of the defendants, I hereby enter default judgment against both Defendants in the terms specified in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the reliefs sought in the Claim. I also order cost on the standard basis.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge