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

Hou v Attorney General [2026] SBHC 25; HCSI-CC 557 of 2017 (10 March 2026)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 557 of 2017

BETWEEN:

JOHN HOU, WALTER HIKU, KELLY HOU, GIBSON OASANAU AND CHRIS WATE
(Trading as Southern Forest Industry)
Claimants

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing the Commissioner of Forest)
First Defendant

AND:

ELIZAH OWA HIRUMAE, MATHEW NGARO, GEORGE WA’A AND EDWIN AUKELA
(Trading as Southern Enterprise Sawmilling)
Second Defendants

AND:

WAN LIK BROTHERS LIMITED
Third Defendant

Date of Hearing: 13 February 2025
Date of Decision: 10 March 2026

No Appearance for the Claimant
Mr P Kelesi for the First Defendant
No Appearance for the Second Defendant

RULING

Background

1. This ruling repeats much of the background set out in the ruling delivered on 4 November 2024. On 16 November 2017 the Claimants filed a claim for judicial review in relation to the decision of the Commissioner of Forests made in August 2017, to amend felling licence A10112. The evidence before me is that the claim was served on the Attorney General at his office in Panatina Plaza at 1.06pm on 24 November 2017.
2. On 22 June 2018 the Claimant discontinued the claim against the Third Defendant, Wan Lik Brothers Ltd. On 30 January 2019, Keniapisia J delivered a ruling following a chapter 15 Conference pursuant to rule 15.3.21 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 [‘the rules’]. The Court ordered that the matter was to proceed to trial, that the Attorney General was to file a defence and the matter be listed for mention.
3. Nothing further happened on the file until 28 July 2021 when the Deputy Registrar struck out the claim pursuant to rule 9.72(d) of the rules, as no steps had been taken in the preceding 12 months.
4. On 6 June 2024 the Court heard and application to reinstate the proceedings. This Court in a judgment dated 11 June 2024 granted leave to reinstate the proceedings and ordered the Registrar to do so. The Claimants were granted leave to amend the claim to reflect a required change to the names of the Claimants following the death of one of them. A mention of the case was fixed for 4 July 2024 at 9:30am.
5. By 4 July 2024 no amended claim had been filed. Counsel were directed to liaise and bring agreed directions to the next mention on 11 July 2024.
6. On 11 July 2024 still no amended claim had been filed. With the agreement of counsel, the Claimants were ordered to file and serve the amended claim by close of business on 18 July 2024. The defendants were ordered to file their defence to the amended claim by 1 August 2024. Again, counsel were directed to liaise and bring agreed directions as that order had not been complied with.
7. There was a further mention on 1 August 2024. Counsel for the Claimants did not appear. No amended claim had been filed. No defence to the claim was filed by the First Defendant. Accordingly, the Court directed that pleadings were now closed. Counsel for the Second Defendant indicated an application to strike out the claim would be filed within seven days. The Court directed that the case proceed to a pre-trial conference on 23 August 2024. The Claimants filed a document called the Amended Claim on 2 August 2024 with no application to further extend time for filing that document. The document did not address the sole issue that the Claimants had raised, being the need to replace the Claimant Chris Wate with another person. The filing was out of time and rejected by the Court because of the continued failure to comply with Court orders.
8. The Claimants applied to have the injunctive orders put in place in 2017. On 23 August 2024 being the date for hearing that application the hearing could not proceed as no-one had taken any steps. The Court ordered the hearing to proceed on 9 September 2024. On that date copies of an application by the Claimants filed on 23 August 2024 were provided to other counsel. There was no explanation why they had not been served on the First and Second Defendants. The hearing was therefore again vacated. A mention was fixed for 3 October 2024. On that date a pre-trial conference date was set for 21 October 2024 with counsel being ordered to file and serve their submissions by close of business on 16 October 2024.

Application to re-instate injunctive orders

9. On 21 October 2024 counsel had not filed their submissions as ordered. The Claimants filed submissions at 1.00pm that day the same time as the hearing was to proceed. Other counsel agreed to file submissions by close of business on 22 October 2024 with the Court being asked to make a ruling on the papers.
10. By close of business on 22 October 2024 submissions had been received from the Claimants and from the First Defendant. The hearing was to determine the application to re-instate the Court orders made on 29 November 2017.
11. For the reasons set out in the ruling dated 4 November 2024 the application to re-instate the injunctive orders made in 2017 was refused.
12. The First Defendant had filed submissions that were premised on an alleged failure to serve the claim. The evidence before me was that the claim had been served on the First Defendant on 24 November 2017. It is noted that the First Defendant still has not filed a defence in spite of being served nearly seven years ago and being ordered to file a defence on numerous occasions.
13. The Court advised counsel that it could hear the case on 25 November 2024 at 9.30am. The Claimants however appeared to have only one deponent who is deceased. The First Defendant has filed no evidence nor even a defence. So far as evidence is concerned the only other evidence was a sworn statement from one of the Second Defendants. The Court noted the repeated failure to comply with the rules and the Court orders.
14. The Court directed that case will be called at 1.00pm on 6 November 2024 for a pre-trial hearing to fix a hearing date and make such other orders as may be necessary to proceed to hearing. That pre-trial was adjourned to 21 November 2024.
15. On 21 November 2024 the First Defendant raised an issue about section 18 of the Crown Proceedings Act. Court fixed 13 February 2025 as the date to hear from counsel on that issue and the issue of delay in commencing the proceedings. The Court made the following orders:
    1. The First Defendant was to file and serve its submissions on section 18 of the Crown Proceedings Act by close of business on 31 January 2025.
    2. The Claimants were to file a sworn statement concerning the issues of time restraints as set out in rule 15.3 of the rules.
    3. The Claimants were to file submissions on section 18 of the Crown Proceedings Act by close of business on 10 February 2025.
16. By close of business no submissions had been filed by the First Defendant. No defence had been filed by the First Defendant and no application to extend time for filing a defence had been filed. No further sworn statement had been filed by the Claimants.
17. On 13 February 2025 there was no appearance for the Claimants and no appearance for the Second Defendants. Mr Kelesi for the First Defendant had prepared submissions but that were clearly out of time and had not been served on the Claimants or on the Second Defendant. Mr Kelesi asked to be heard on his submissions notwithstanding he had not complied with the order to file and serve them by 31 January 2025.
18. In the time that has followed there has been no explanation from the Claimants for the failure to file submissions or the sworn statement. A further 12 months has passed with the Claimants taking no steps and they have not responded to the submission that the Court is not entitled to make the orders sought in the claim because of the prohibition set out in section 18 of the Crown Proceedings Act.
19. In the meantime, the Second Defendants filed a sworn statement asserting that the organisation named Southern Forest Industry has been struck off from the Companies Office records. The Second Defendants submit that as such the Claimants is therefore no longer an entity able to institute or defend proceedings. The Second Defendant has submitted that the proceedings should be struck out. The submissions on behalf of the Second Defendant are contained in a sworn statement of Elijah Owa who deposed that he represents the Second Defendants. The Court accepts that he is in fact the same person as Elijah Owa Hirumae who is one of the named Second Defendants. Annexed to the sworn statement is evidence from the Companies Office that shows that Southern Forest Industry Co Limited was an incorporated company but ceased to be registered on 1 October 2023. He deposed that the Claimants are in fact this company. This may account for the lack of an appearance for and evidence from the Claimants.
20. These proceedings have been marked by a total disregard for the orders of the Court. When the parties bring an application, it should be in writing served on the other parties. Submissions are not evidence. Once filed they are to be served on other parties to the proceedings. Evidence is to be put before the Court in the form of sworn statements. A party to proceedings that has failed to file a defence runs the risk that the Court is unlikely to place any weight on submissions presented but not served in accordance with the orders of the Court.
21. The Court is now left in the position that these proceedings must be brought to an end. This conclusion is arrived at because of the failure of the Claimants, in particular, to comply with the Court order to address the identity of the Claimants. Leave was given to file an amended claim in order to replace the late Chris Wate as one of the named Claimants. That was not done. On the evidence now before the Court the Claimant was in fact a limited liability company that no longer exists and as such cannot instruct counsel. The Claimants have not filed evidence nor submissions as ordered by the Court. For this reason alone, the proceedings should be struck out pursuant to rule 23.4. Finally, the Claimants have taken no steps for more than 12 months notwithstanding that the Court had reinstated the proceedings following a previous similar failure. In accordance with rule 9.72(d) the claim is now struck out.
22. In these circumstances the Court is not called on to make a ruling in relation to the submission that the proceedings seek a remedy that is not available to the Claimants pursuant to section 18 of the Crown Proceedings Act. Similarly, the Court is not called on to determine whether the claim was brought out of time. As the First Defendant had no standing following a failure to file a defence and the Second Defendants failed to appear at the hearing on 13 February 2025 without offering an explanation, the Court declines to order costs against the Claimant.

Orders

1. The claim is struck out
2. The parties will bear their own costs.

By the Court
Hon. Justice Howard Lawry
Puisne Judge