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

LS Shop Co Ltd v Rotau [2025] SBHC 20; HCSI-CC 120 of 2024 (6 March 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 120 of 2024

BETWEEN

LS SHOP COMPANY LIMITED
Claimant/Enforcement Creditor

AND:

Jay John Rotau
Defendant/Enforcement Debtor

Date of Hearing: 27 February 2025
Date of Ruling: 6 March 2025

Mr. H Waisanau for the Claimant/Enforcement Creditor
No Appearance for the Defendant/ Enforcement Debtor

RULING ON ENFORCEMENT

AULANGA, PJ:

1. There is a slogan that says “it is good to be honest than to be dishonest when taking goods or money on credit from another since the real you will be reflected in your attitude in repayment”. This statement, despite its simplicity, is profoundly true in the context of commercial dealings and undertakings. A good example is the present case.
2. A brief synopsis of the case shows that on various dates in January to February 2024, the Defendant (“Debtor”) personally approached the Claimant (“Creditor”) and borrowed monies and goods from the Creditor’s shop at Henderson, East Honiara. The total of the monies and goods taken is SBD $264, 203.00.
3. The Debtor upon receipt of the monies and goods made full promise to refund his debt within 2 weeks of the taking. Several attempts were made for him to settle his debts but remained to be unsuccessful. Of those attempts, he issued two cheques to the Creditor for encashment, respectively at the BSP and Bred Bank. Those cheques were found to be dishonest with insufficient funds. The deceptiveness of the Debtor towards his creditor thereafter continues. In the claim, the Creditor described the behaviour of the Debtor to be “fraudulent” and being a “dishonest person”. The Debtor failed to settle his debt, resulted in the Creditor commencing a Category B claim against him on 5^th April 2024.
4. The matter proceeded in Court without the attendance of the Debtor. On 17^th June 2024, the Court granted Default Judgment Order against him for failure to file a defence after being served with the claim.
5. Now, the Creditor has brought this application for enforcement of the Default Judgment Order (“order”) granted on the 17^th June 2024. The terms of the order are:
   • “1. The Default Judgment is granted by the Court in favour of the Claimant against the Defendant in this proceeding.
   • 2. The Claimant’s counsel is directed to file draft Judgment Orders for the Court’s endorsement by 18^th June 2023.
   • 3. The Default Judgment in the total sum of two hundred dollars and sixty-four thousand and two hundred and three dollars (SBD $264, 203.00) shall be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant within 14 days upon receipt of the Default Judgment Orders.
   • 4. The Defendant shall pay costs on standard basis for failure to defend the claim filed against him at the High Court of Solomon Islands.
   • 5. The matter is adjourned to 9^th September 2024 at 1:30pm to check on compliance of the Default Judgement Orders.”
6. The application is made pursuant to rules 21.5, 21.27 and 21.30 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. The application is supported by a sworn statement of Andyson Leong, filed on 18^th September 2024.
7. The order was served on the Debtor on 26^th June 2024 at about 11:28am at his residential area in Henderson. The order was served by Claimant’s counsel, Haniel Waisanau. Since the service of the order, the Debtor did not settle the debt as required by the order. Be it of sheer ignorance or his reluctance to comply, that remains unknown. So, the next step is for the Court to enforce the order. This is to ensure the said Debtor cannot escape from his liability.
8. Despite the service of the order, he did not bother to settle his debt. I have little doubt that he will not comply with the order given the significant lapse of time since the receipt of the order. A period of almost 9 months had lapsed without him taking a positive step to settle his debt. Hence, the only way to hold his accountable for his debt is to enforce the order as sought in the application.
9. In view of the straightforwardness of the application and having satisfied myself with the materials filed herein, I therefore grant the application accordingly. The amounts recoverable under this Enforcement Order are:

10. Premised on the above, I therefore authorise the Sheriff’s Office of the High Court to enforce and cause to recover from the Debtor, the debt sum of $267, 493.00 including seizing and removing from the said Debtor any asset or properties in the event he has failed to settle his debt within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
11. I further order that this order is valid for 12 months commencing from the date of the order, to be renewed upon proper filing of an application before the expiry date.
12. Order accordingly.

THE COURT
Hon. Justice Augustine S. Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE