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

Sasago v Sasago [1991] SBHC 26; HC-CC 040 of 1989 (10 April 1991)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 40 of 1989

SASAGO

-v-

SASAGO

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Ward C.J.)

Hearing: 28 March 1991
Judgment: 10 April 1991

J. Muria for the Petitioner
T. Kama for the Respondent

WARD CJ: In this case, the court has been asked to make financial provision following the divorce of the parties.

I have heard evidence of the finances of the parties and I do not repeat it here.

In general terms, the major assets involved are a store and house in Vara Creek which was, for a while, the matrimonial home and in which the petitioner is still living and the auto electricians business which the respondent runs and in which his wife gave him some small assistance during the marriage.

After an unfortunate interval in which the store ran out of stock and was allowed to deteriorate, it has now been repaired and restocked. The petitioner is now running it as a store successfully and paying off an overdraft at the bank with the profits as well as providing for herself.

I have been unable to ascertain the true state of the respondent's business. The respondent claims he runs at a loss but I am far from convinced that is the case. I was considering having further accounts taken but I feel such detail is unnecessary because the petitioner does not claim any interest in the business. Equally, the respondent has withdrawn to some extent from his rather entrenched position over the store premises and agrees he and his ex-wife have a 50:50 interest in the premises.

The petitioner does not seek maintenance for herself as she is able to live in and run the store. She would in that way be able to provide a house for the child who is still in Honiara and the others if they visit from the West. The respondent pays the school fees for the child in Honiara and the petitioner the other two in the Western Province.

I feel the major disposition by the court should be based on preserving the present status quo.

I order that the premises in Vara Creek and all the store fixtures and fittings are to be registered in the joint names of the petitioner and respondent and each is to have a half share in those premises. The wife is to have the right to reside there until the youngest child reaches his majority and there is to be no disposition by either party of his or her interest before that date unless both parties agree.

Either party may use his interest in the property as security for a loan but up to a maximum of $5000. The wife is to continue to pay off her present loan and not to use the store as security for any loan until it is paid off.

This does not include the stock in the store. I accept this has been purchased by the wife largely and to avoid any doubt I order that all stock presently in the store shall go to the wife.

All furniture and other matrimonial property in the living accommodation is to go to the wife.

One of the two freezers removed from the store by the respondent is to be returned to the wife in working order within 14 days of this order and is to become part of the wife's property. The remaining freezer is to become the property of the husband.

I make no order in relation to the respondent's business.

The present arrangement whereby the respondent pays the school fees for Tom Gilbert and the petitioner those of Vicky and Pamela is to continue but the respondent is to pay nominal maintenance for each of the children of $5.00 per month to be paid to the wife.

Custody of all three children is to remain with the petitioner but she is to allow reasonable access to the respondent.

No order for costs.

(F.G.R. Ward)
CHIEF JUSTICE