HIGH COURT OF
SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Case
No. 54 of 1997
<
DONALD
SUAKAPU
/p>
v
/p>
CHAIRMAN OF ST JOSEPH'S
CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL,
TENARU EDUCATION BOARD
High Court of Solomon Islands
Before: Lungole-Awich J
Civil Case No. 54 of 1997
Hearing: 26th
Judgment: 2nd November, 199, 1998
Counsel: S. Manetoali for the Plaintiff;
Respondent not Represented
p>
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
JUDGMENT
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
LUNGOLE-AWICH J:
The plaintiff, Donald Suakapu, was a student in form 4 at Joseph Catholic
Secondary School, Tenaru, in 1996. On the evening
of 11.9.1996 he was
confronted by an employee of the school, the employee accused him of having
stolen school chicken.
The plaintiff denied the allegation. On 12.9.1996 he
was taken to a teacher who repeated the charge. According to the plaintiff,
he denied the allegation. He was, then taken to the principal. The plaintiff
said that before the principal, he again
denied the allegation, despite
persuasion and coercion to admit. On 17.9.1998 he was handed a letter dated
16.9.1998,
now exhibit DS1 to the plaintiffs affidavit. The letter was
addressed to the plaintiffs father; it included the passage, �your son
Donald Suakapu has been sent home for an indefinite period pending the Board
of Governor's decision�. By 28.2.1997, some 5 months later, when the
plaintiff filed this case, he or his father had not heard from the school
about the decision of the Board.
The Plaintiff's Case.
The plaintiffs case is that uspension was unlawful, it , it was in breach of
natural justice. He claimed damages and asked
for order to place him back
in, �any other similar secondary school�, and of course asked for
costs of the case.
No Reply by the Defendant.
The defendant, the Chairman of at Joseph�s Catholic Secondary School, Tenaru naru
(Education Board), did not file any
case papers in reply to the plaintiffs
case and did not appear in court at the hearing of the case. On the case
file
there are affidavits of service of the case papers and of notice of
hearing. It is apparent that at Joseph�s School Board,
led by its Chairman,
simply decided to ignore the case papers. That attitude is least expected
from institutions that
profess to uphold the high moral codes that religious
spiritual teachings exhorts of ordinary people.
The Events as Affected the Plaintiff.
The plaintiffs account of his indefinite suspension which now seems to be
expulsion, stands uncontradicted and appears
probable in my assessment. The
plaintiff was given opportunities to state his case to the Science Teacher,
Mr. John Rofeta
and to the Deputy Principal. Those inquiries met the
requirement of natural Justice. Things went wrong at the Board of Governors
level. The Board had not, by 28.10.1997, some 13 months after the suspension
of the plaintiffs, met to decide the fate
of the plaintiff. In my view the
effect of the omission by the Board for a very long time, to attend to its
duty to decide
the allegation against the plaintiff is that the plaintiff
has been punished by the Board without the Board having afforded
him
hearing. It has been total denial of opportunity to the plaintiff to know
the extent of the charge before the Board,
against the plaintiff, and total
denial of opportunity to the plaintiff to state his side of the case.
L Review Applicable to Private Institution.
/p>
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Althoughoseph�s School is a non statutory body, it is bound to obse observe
the rules of natural justice when it decides
matters that affect the
interest of students, staff and any-body whose interest is or might be
affected by decisions
made by the Board. The cases of : Clement Kakano v
Attorney General HC.CC No 214 of 1991, Desmond Nimepo v. Premier of
Guadalcanal Province HC.CC No 379 of 1995 and Harley Simata v.
Goldie College HC.CC No 89 of 1997, and the English case of
Schmdt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch. 149 and
Australian case of FAI Insurance Ltd v. Winneke [1982] 151 Ch. R347 are
examples.
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Decision.
My judgment is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court
makes the declaratiot the suspension of the plaintiff became unlawful
bec because the School Board adopted it and turned it into expulsion in breach
of the rule of natural justice. It may
well be that the plaintiff stole
school chicken, we do not know the facts about that, but the Board of
Governors was
required by law to deal with his case fairly according to
natural justice. The Court has been informed at the hearing that
the
plaintiff was no longer interested in returning to school, had he desired, I
would have granted mandamus compelling
Joseph�s Catholic Secondary School to
take him back in school. Even so, I grant leave to the plaintiff should he
wish,
to apply for order of mandamus based on this judgment, compelling
Joseph's Catholic Secondary School to take him back in school.
I doubt
whether the Court can order another school completely unrelated to St.
Joseph to take in the plaintiff. What
about the right of that other school
to be heard?
The plaintiff asked for compensation for his school fees lost and for
general damages. This is a suitable case to grant
damages in. I grant both
the special damages, of $800.00 being school fees paid, and a sum equivalent
to costs to the
plaintiff of travelling home. I also grant general damages
to be assessed by the Registrar. I notice that several solicitors
do not
specify damages that they sue for. In my view that is bad pleading. Quantum
of general damages must be specified
in pleading to make the claim complete.
In future I shall consider returning such cases back for completion of
pleading.
It is regrettable that at Joseph's Catholic Secondary School, a well
res respected religious institution has blatantly
disregarded consideration for
justice when it dealt with the plaintiff�s case, and now has simply ignored
proceedings
before this Court. I hope the school will rethink its ways, and
return to conducting its business concerning interests of students,
staff
and the public in a manner that will retain the respect that the public has
for St. Joseph.
The defendant will pay the costs of this case to the plff.
Delivered this 2nd day of November 19pan>
High Court of Solomon Islands
Sam Lungole-Awich
JUDGE.span>
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1998/47.html
