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

Vave v Walenenea [1999] SBHC 144; HCSI-CC 337 of 1996 (20 April 1999)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 337 of 1996

ISIKELI VAVE

-v-

GEORGE WALENENEA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.)
Civil Case No. 337 of 1996

Hearing: 19 April 1999
Judgment: 20 April 1999

A. Nori for Plaintiff
C. Ashley for Defendant

MURIA CJ: On 17 July 1998, I gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $46,851.00, which was the amount claimed, plus costs. That judgment had not been satisfied and execution process had been carried out to enforce it. The Court had been told that one or two properties belonging to the defendant (vehicles) had been seized under the execution process.

The plaintiff, now brings these proceedings seeking an amendment to the judgment so as to include an order for “interest” to be paid on the judgment. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs Statement Claim included a prayer for “interest” also. However the judgment had been given only for the sum claim plus cost. There was an omission to include an order for “interest” in the judgment.

The general power of the Court to amend judgments or orders is contained in Order 30 r.11 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules which provides:

“11. Clerical mistakes in Judgments or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Court on motion or summons without an appeal.”

Thus, not only clerical mistakes can be corrected but also errors in the judgments or orders arising from accidental ship or omission can be corrected.

This rule is sometimes known as the “slip rule” and had been applied in a number of cases. I need only refer to three of them. In Shipwright -v- Clements (1890) 63 LT 160, an action was taken to enforce by way of injunction a covenant by the lessee. The injunction was granted, but omitted to make reference to the period during which it was to be enforced. The Court allowed the order to be amended to include the words “during the remainder of the term of the lease.” To the order. In Tak Ming Co. Ltd -v- Yee Sang Metal Supplies Co. [1973] 1 WLR 300 the Privy Council held that the “slip rule” had been properly used to correct a judgment for damages by including an order for payment of “interest.”

However, although there is general power to amend, the Court also retains the discretion in deciding whether to correct its judgment or not even where it can competently do so, particularly where it would be inexpedient or inequitable to do so. Such was the case in Moore -v- Buchanan [1967] 1 WLR 1341 where the judge granted a fourteen day stay of execution pending appeal and by mistake the stay was omitted from the judgment when it was entered. The Court of Appeal held that there should not be any amendment to the judgment as 18 months had elapsed since the date of judgment and nothing has been done to secure the amendment while the appeal was pending.

In his Statement of Claim in this action the plaintiff sought orders for damages in the sum of $46, 851.00 together with costs and interest. The omission of order for interest in the judgment was clearly an omission to which the “slip rule” should properly be applied to have the judgment amended so as to include therein an order for “interest.” I order that the judgment in this action given on 15 July 1998 in favour of the plaintiff be amended so as to include therein an order in favour of the plaintiff for “interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of issue of the writ to the date the judgment is satisfied.” Each party to bear his own costs in respect of this application.

Order accordingly.

(Sir John Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE