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

Silikesa v Qae [2025] SBHC 48; HCSI-CC 489 of 2024 (21 March 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 489 of 2024

BETWEEN:

FRANKLYN KONGORO SILIKESA
First Claimant

AND:

MICHAEL PITAKOE
Second Claimant

AND:

MARGARET QAE
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 21 March 2025
Date of Ruling: 21 March 2025

Mr Bradley Dalipanda for the First and Second Claimant
Mr Ellington Matagani for the Defendant

Pitakaka; PJ

EX-TEMPORE RULING ON APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1. The Claimants initiated legal action on 27 November 2024 against the Defendant, Margaret Qae, seeking financial relief.
2. The claim demands:
   1. payment of SBD79, 500.00 for the outstanding amount owed to the First Claimant, Franklyn Kongoro Silikesa.
   2. Assessment of business losses.
   100. 5% annual interest on the owed sum.
   4. Indemnity costs against the Defendant.
3. The Defendant was personally served with the claim on 17 December 2024.
4. On 5 December 2024, the Claimants urgently applied for a freezing order against the Defendant to prevent asset dissipation.
5. The Claimants supported this application with sworn statements from Michael Pitakoe and Franklyn Kongoro Silikesa, filed on 27 November 2025, along with an additional sworn statement from Michael Pitakoe on 5 December 2024.
6. The court granted the freezing order on 10 December 2024.
7. On 14 February 2025, the Defendant moved to set aside the freezing order, relying on sworn statements filed on 24 December 2024, 19 December 2024, and 12 February 2025 by the Defendant.
8. Despite this, the Defendant failed to file a defence. Consequently, on 19 March 2025, the Claimants applied for a default judgment.
9. The Claimants reinforced their request with sworn proof of service from Jeffery Daulima, filed on 12 March 2025, confirming that the Defendant was personally served on 17 December 2024.
10. The Claimants further supported their application with an additional sworn statement from Michael Pitakoe on 12 March 2025
11. The court scheduled both the inter partes hearing for the freezing order and the application for default judgment on 21 March 2025.
12. The Claimants argued that granting default judgment would render the inter partes hearing unnecessary, and the court concurred.
13. On 21 March 2024, the court granted default judgment and now provides its reasoning.

Issue 1: Entitlement to Default Judgment

14. The applicable rules under Chapter 9 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007, particularly Rule 9.17, govern default judgments.
15. Rule 9.17 allows a claimant to seek default judgment if the Defendant fails to respond or file a defence within the timeframe specified in Rule 5.37.
16. 16. Rule 9.22 permits the court to grant judgment in the Claimants’ favor without a hearing.
17. Rule 9.23 specifically allows default judgment in Category B claims when a defendant does not respond or defend.
18. Rule 9.24 authorizes the court to award the claimed sum, interest, and costs.
19. The Defendant failed to file a response or defence, justifying the Claimants’ application for default judgment.
20. The Claimants met all procedural requirements under these rules, as supported by sworn statements of Michael Pitakoe filed on 12 March 2025 and proof of service sworn statement of Jeffery Daulima filed on 12 March 2025.
21. Thus, the court finds the Claimants fully entitled to default judgment.

Issue 2: Discretion to Grant Default Judgment

22. While default judgment is discretionary, the court must ensure it is fair and justified based on the claim’s nature.
23. Precedents such as Lethy & Siako v. Luluku & Others^[1], QQQ Holdings Ltd v. Honiara City Council ^[2] and Sukumaran v. Pillai^[3] show that default judgment is inappropriate where declaratory relief is sought and if jurisdictional issues or complex legal matters require trial consideration.
24. However, the present case involves a straightforward monetary claim.
25. The Defendant, despite being duly served, failed to engage in the legal process.
26. The court finds no jurisdictional or substantive legal barriers preventing judgment.
27. As this case falls within the scope of Rules 9.22, 9.23, and 9.24 as set out above, default judgment is both just and appropriate.

Awarding Indemnity Costs

28. Under Rules 9.23 and 9.24(c), the Claimants are entitled to claim costs against the Defendant.
29. The Defendant’s deliberate failure to respond forced the Claimants to seek default judgment, justifying the award of indemnity costs.
30. The court exercises its discretion to impose indemnity costs as sought by the claim on the Defendant.

Final Orders

31. The court orders as follows:
    1. The Defendant shall pay SBD79, 500.00 to the First Claimant, Franklyn Kongoro Silikesa.
    2. The Claimant is at liberty to apply for Business losses to be assessed.
    100. The Defendant shall pay 5% interest per annum on the outstanding amount.
    4. The costs shall be on indemnity basis against the Defendant.

DATED this 21st of March, 2025.
By the Court
Hon. Justice Michael Collin Pitakaka
Puisne Judge of the High Court

^[1] [1998] SBHC 13; HC-CC 104 of 1996 (23 February 1998), Awich J

^[2] [2003] SBHC 18; HC-CC 039 of 2003 )1 May 2003), Kabui J

[3] [2013] SBHC 153; HCSI-CC 396 of 2012 (20 November 2013), Apaniai J