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

Cape West Marketing Enterprises Ltd v Tomino Customary Landowners Resources Co Ltd [2025] SBHC 4; HCSI-CC 136 of 2020 (27 January 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 136 of 2020

BETWEEN:

CAPE WEST MARKETING ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Claimant

AND:

TOMINO CUSTOMARY LANDOWNERS RESOURCES COMPANY
LIMITED
First Defendant

AND:

WOODLAND LOGGING COMPANY LIMITED
Second Defendant

AND:

WAN LIK BROTHERS LIMITED
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 27 January 2025
Date of Ruling: 27 January 2025

Ms L Hou for the Claimant
Mr Taupongi for First and Second Defendants (Counsel excused)
No Appearance for the Third Defendant

RULING

AULANGA PJ:

1. On 6^th December 2023, the parties filed a Consent Order (“Order”). It was accepted and endorsed by the Court on the same date. The Order required all the Defendants to settle the debt of $230,000 in equal shares. Only the First and Second Defendants had settled their debts as per the Order. The Claimant was permitted to pursue the balance of the claim against the Third Defendant.
2. From 6^th December to this date, 27^th January 2025, a period more than 12 months has lapsed without any active steps being taken by the Claimant. The Court, on a few occasions during mentions, had given the Claimant ample time to progress the claim against the Third Defendant. Counsel Mr. Etomea, on those occasions had verbally informed the Court of his intention to file an application for redirection of debt, but that did not materialize and the matter somehow remained stagnant without any active steps being taken by counsel. In some instances, the Court was requested by counsel only for adjournments of the matter for more or less the same reason, that is, to search for any properties and directors of the Third Defendant.
3. This morning, Counsel Ms. Hou appeared and sought another 2 months adjournment to allow the Claimant to ascertain whether further proceedings could be taken against the Third Defendant. By calculation, that 2 months if granted is to be added to the 12 months that had been given that resulted in the dormancy of the matter.
4. I refused the adjournment and ordered that the claim against the Third Defendant be struck out under Rule 9.71 (a) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. I reached this inevitable decision on the basis that the Claimant for the past 12 months had failed to take any active steps to ensure the continuity of hearings or proceedings against the Third Defendant. A period of 12 months, if properly used, is ample time for the Claimant to progress the case by filing of the proposed application. Nothing has been done that shows laxity and a dereliction of counsel’s duty to comply with the overriding objectives of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007. That is, for counsel to minimise the delays and costs when prosecuting this matter in Court. The Court will not continue to grant any more adjournments to serve the convenience of the Claimant as this will contribute to more delays and costs in the proceeding. No order for costs.

Orders of the court

(1) The claim against the Third Defendant is struck out under Rule 9.71(a) of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
(2) No order for costs.

Hon. Justice Augustine Sylver Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE