HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Zupukana v Excel Timber Ltd 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	17 June 2024	
		
Parties: 	Cherry Zupukana and Richard Hopa v Excel Timber Limited, Steven Chieng 	
		
Date of hearing: 	17 June 2024	
		
Court file number(s): 	608 of 2023	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Aulanga; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1) 	The claim filed on 18 December 2023 is struck out pursuant to Rule 9.72(a) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
2) 	Costs to be awarded to the First and Second Defendants on standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed.	
		
Representation: 	No Appearance for the Claimants 
Mr. L. Kwaiga for the First and Second Defendants	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007, r 1.3, r1.8, r 9.71 (a), r9.72(a)	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil case No. 608 of 2023

BETWEEN 

CHERRY ZUPUKANA AND RICHARD HOPA 
Claimants

AND:

EXCEL TIMBER LIMITED 
1st Defendant 

AND:

STEVEN CHIENG 
(General Manager of the First Defendant)
2nd Defendant 

Date of Hearing: 17 June 2024
Date of Ruling: 17 June 2024

No Appearance for the Claimants 
Mr. L. Kwaiga for the First and Second Defendant 
RULING ON CLAIM STRUCK OUT
1. 	This will be the third consecutive occasion, counsel for the Claimants or the Claimants in person did not appear. The first was on 19 February 2024, second on 4 March 2024 and third being today, 17 June 2024. On record, Mr. Wayne Ghemu represented the Claimants. Now that he was elected a National Parliamentarian, the Claimants should find a new lawyer. The National General Election has gone past since April 2024. Now we are in June 2024, and if the Claimants are serious about progressing the case, they should appear or engage a new lawyer to represent them and appear in the Court as and when the matter is called.
2. 	Let me remind the Claimants of these basic tenets of the overriding objectives of Rules in civil litigation in Solomon Islands as advocated by Rule 1.3 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007, which was codified and written in simple English terms as:
	“1.3. The overriding objective of these rules is to enable the courts to deal with cases justly with minimum delay and expense.”
3. 	 The parties, which in this case includes the Claimants, are then required by Rule 1.8 to do the following:
	“1.8 The parties to a proceeding and their representatives must help the court to act in accordance with the overriding objective. They must avoid undue delay, expense and technicality and consider options for primary dispute resolution as early as possible. Application of these Rules.”
4. 	It is clear that the litigation landscape of this jurisdiction advocated by these Rules cited above require the parties upon filing of the matter and upon appearance in the Court, to progress the case with minimal delay. Not attending to the matter when called in Court is discouraged by Rule 1.8 above. Certainly, the failure to attend to the Court on three occasions like this present matter runs afoul significantly to the Rules.
5. 	Counsel for the Defendants applied to strike out the matter under Rule 9.71 (a) due to the failure of the Claimants or their counsel to appear to this matter on three consecutive mentions. I have considered the application. There is no evidence before me by the Claimants to say that their continuous nonattendance to this matter are for reasons that the Court should take note of to grant another adjournment so that they can attend to Court on next mention date. Further, I have no evidence from the Claimants about their nonattendance to the Court today for purposes of managing the progression of this matter. Why they failed to appear remains only known to them.
6. 	This is a High Court matter. Once a case is filed, the need to attend to that case and have it progressed require compliance on the part of that party. By failing to attend either by counsel or in the present case, the Claimants in person, the obvious consequence would be that of Rule 9.71 (a) and 9.72 (a). That is, the Court will strike out a proceeding if the Claimants do not “take the steps in a proceeding that are required by these rules to ensure the proceeding continues.” The step here is to attend to the case in Court and have the matter progressed forward for trial as required by the Rules in civil litigation.
7. 	The application pursuant to Rule 9.72 (a) to strike out the claim is granted with costs to be awarded to the First and Second Defendants on standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
Orders of the Court
1) 	The claim filed on 18 December 2023 is struck out pursuant to Rule 9.72(a) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
2) 	Costs to be awarded to the First and Second Defendants on standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
HE COURT
Augustine S. Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE