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

Constantine v Lae [2024] SBHC 70; HCSI-CC 33 of 2024 (19 July 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 33 of 2024

BETWEEN:

NEIL CONSTANTINE
(Representing himself and Kelenta’alu subtribe of South Malaita, Malaita Province)
Claimant

AND:

FREDRICK LAE, ALLAN HONIPO, TIMOTHY HASI, JASPER KOKE AND JASON HASI
(Representing Halehaú Community of South Malaita, Malaita Province)
First Defendants

AND:

TOP TIMBER COMPANY
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 2 July 2024
Date of Ruling: 19 July 2024

Mr. J. S. Taupongi for the Claimant
No appearance for the First Defendant and Second Defendants

RULING ON DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION

Aulanga PJ

1. The Claimant seeks default judgment against the First and Second Claimant filed Category C claim on 31^st January 2024. It relates to felling of logs and milling of timbers in Kalentaálu customary land in South Malaita. The land was owned in custom by the Claimant’s subtribe.
2. After the claim was filed, it was served on the First and Second Defendants by late Fiumae, who worked as an Admin Officer for the Claimant’s counsel private law firm, at Ranadi in Honiara at about 2:45pm on the same day. This was evidenced in the Record of Service Book of Taupongi J.S Law Office annexed “DE-1” of Deanne Enoch sworn statement of proof of service. I am satisfied that the claim was properly served on the First and Second Defendants for purposes of this proceeding.
3. Ranadi area, as the location where the claim was served on both Defendants, is within 20km from the main post office in Honiara. Hence, by rule 5.37 (c) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (“CPR”), the First and Second Defendants should file their defence within 28 days from the date of receipt of the claim. By calculation, they should file their respective defence by 28^th February 2024. I have checked the Court’s file and as confirmed by the Claimant’s counsel, both Defendants however did not file any response or defence. By that omission, the Claimant therefore invoked rule 5.37 and 9. 17 of the CPR to seek default judgment to be entered against both the Defendants.
4. I have perused all the documents filed for this application including the Claimant’s written submission. It is trite law that the granting of default judgment is a discretionary exercise on the part of the Court as well stated in Sukumaran v Pillai [2013] SBHC 153; HCSI-CC 396 of 2012 and Taukana and others v Delta Timber Limited HCSI-CC No. 228 of 2020. The Court can also refuse it and prefer to have the matter proceeded to trial before a decision can be made, as exemplified in QQQ Holdings Limited v Honiara City Council [2003] SBHC 18.
5. The case herein is for damages for the unlawful felling of trees and milling of timbers inside the Kalentaálu customary land in South Malaita. The nature of this claim is one that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. In the light of no defence being filed for this proceeding, in my view, this is an appropriate case that I should enter default judgment against the First and Second Defendants in the terms as set out in the claim. Unless there is any further application to set aside this judgment, the reliefs sought in the claim are now finally determined in favour of the Claimant without the need for trial.
6. The Claimant asks the Court that costs will only be ordered against the First Defendants and not the Second Defendant. I do not have any reason to refuse that submission and so I order that the First Defendants to pay costs of this application to the Claimant on standard basis.

Orders of the Court

1. The application for default judgment is granted.
2. The First Defendants are jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant damages for trespass into Kalentaálu customary land situated in South Malaita, together with interest of 10% per annum to be assessed.
3. The First Defendants are jointly and severally to pay to the Claimant damages for conversion in respect of commercial trees extracted from Kalentaálu customary land, together with interest of 10% per annum, to be assessed.
4. The Second Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of SBD 23, 258.43, being payment for logs extracted from Kalentaálu customary land by the First Defendants labelled “K2”, “JH” and “FL” and sold to the Second Defendant in January 2024.
5. A permanent injunction restraining the First Defendants, together with their families, relatives and invitees from carrying out any logging and tree-felling related activities within Kalentaálu customary land, and from extracting logs from the said land or selling such logs to any person.
6. The First Defendants to pay the Claimant cost of this hearing on standard basis.

THE COURT
Augustine S. Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE