HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Koti v Attorney General 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	10 March 2025 	
		
Parties: 	Paul Buin Koti v Attorney General, Attorney General	
		
Date of hearing: 	10 March 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	43 of 2020	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Bird; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	I hereby dismiss this proceeding under rules 9.13 and 9.14 of the CPR. I also order cost against the Claimant. I hereby order.	
		
Representation: 	No Appearance for the Claimant 
Mr Howard Lapo for the First and Second Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r 16.74, r 9.13 and 9.14	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 43 of 2020

BETWEEN:

PAUL BUIN KOTI
Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(representing the Ministry of Traditional Governance, Peace and Ecclesiastical Affairs)
First Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL 
(representing the Ministry of Public Service)
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 10th March 2025
Date of Decision: 10th March 2025

No Appearance for the Claimant
Mr Howard Lapo for the First & Second Defendants 
RULING ON DISMISSAL
Bird PJ:
1. 	This proceeding was commenced as a special case pursuant to rule 16.74 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007, (CPR) on 4 February 2020. Mr Paul Buin Koti (Claimant) was an employee of the Solomon Islands Government in the Ministry of Traditional Governance, Peace and Ecclesiastical Affairs. He sued the Attorney General for unlawful withholding of his salary. He alleges that his salary was ceased by SIG from about July 2017 without any notice to him. 
2. 	The matter has progressed very slowly from the date of filing. There had been numerous non-compliance of court direction orders. That has led me to issue an unless order on 7 December 2023. The unless order was not even complied with. The court book which should have been filed on 31 January 2024 was not filed. I was however, indisposed from January 2024 to May 2024 and the matter was not called. By the time I was back at work, the court book has been filed.
3. 	Apart from filing a court book, the Claimant also filed an application for preliminary issues of law. I made directions to progress the application for hearing. The application was heard on 24 July 2024 and after giving due consideration, it was dismissed on 20 August 2024.
4. 	On 3 September 2024, further direction orders were made which then should have led me to conduct a PTC on 1 October 2024. On that date, some of the orders were not fully complied with and it was further adjourned to 5 November 2024. Mr Jack To’ofilu of counsel for the Claimant was unable to get proper instructions from the Claimant and applied for leave to withdraw. He was granted leave with an undertaking that the Claimant was duly informed. The matter was further adjourned to 18 February 2025. On that date, Mr Billy Titiulu appeared for the Claimant. He has undertaken to file and serve a notice of change of advocate.
5. 	I extended time for Mr Titiulu to file and serve supplementary court book by 25 February 2025. The matter was adjourned to 10 March 2024 for PTC. Contrary to the directions of 18 February 2025, Mr Titiulu did not file and serve a notice of change of advocate as per his undertaking. He further did not file and serve a supplementary court book. Evidently, the matter was not ready for PTC.
6. 	Mr Lapo of counsel for the Attorney General appeared today. The Claimant was not present in person. Mr Titiulu who appeared for the Claimant on 25 February also made no appearance. Upon my enquiry through my clerk associate, Mr Titiulu was on compassionate leave. In any event, I was not formally informed by Mr Titiulu or the Registrar.
7. 	This proceeding has been unnecessarily delayed and dragged by the Claimant. It should have been heard and finalised in 2024 but for his application for preliminary issues of law. At the material time, I have raised with counsel whether or not it is in the best interest of the Claimant to progress the matter to trial. I have noted that there were contested issues of facts in the filed Defence. He opted to list the application.
8. 	The Claimant has again failed to comply with court direction orders. There was no appearance by counsel or the Claimant to explain reasons for non-compliance. In any event, and without a proper notice of change of advocate being filed, Mr Titiulu cannot be seen to be counsel for the Claimant. He is in breach of his undertaking in court.
9. 	This proceeding is listed for PTC today. In the absence of the Claimant and for non-compliance of direction orders made on 18 February 2025 without any explanation, I hereby dismiss this proceeding under rules 9.13 and 9.14 of the CPR. I also order cost against the Claimant. I hereby order.
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge