HIGH COURT OF SOLOMONLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Case No. 1 of 1998
BURNLEY KIMITORA & FLORIE KIMITORA
lass=lass="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
v
HOME FINANCE CORPORATION OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
& JOHN IPO & JOANNA IPO
High Court of Solomon Islands
(LUNGOLE-AWICH, J)
p class="MsoNormal"rmal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Hearing: 19/4/1999
Judgment: 20/4/1999
Mr. Kama for the plaintiffs
Mrs. Loa Tepai for the dants
JUDGMENT
p class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The defendant states that it filed defence on 6.10.1998, the plaintiffntiffs have
not taken any further step so pleadings
are to be deemed closed since. That
would be over 6 months ago. The plaintiffs have not argued that pleadings
have not
closed. They simply gave reasons which they see as justifying their
delay, and submitted that r1 of Order 32 is not mandatory,
any party could
take out summons for directions, the defendant should have done so when it
realised that the plaintiffs
had delayed in taking out summons for
directions. They asked the Court to turn the hearing of this application
into hearing
for direction orders.
The plaintiffs say that they delayed because they were away in the Western
Province attending to a timber logging operation.
That is not a good enough
reason to excuse their default. They were aware that they had a case in
Court, they should
have given clear instruction to their solicitor to
proceed while they would be away. The reason is even weaker because it was
the plaintiffs who brought the case to Court, they cannot proceed only when
it is convenient to them, however inconvenient
to the defendant. Moreover,
on an earlier occasion they defaulted in filing amended statement of claim
in time, although
the Court excused them on that occasion.
I
shall allow the defendant�s application, but I shall not order the relief of
dismissal of the plaintiffs� claim. The
reliefs that I order are to put the
plaintiffs on terms, and to order directions in the proceedings straight
away. The
plaintiffs will pay the defendants costs of this application
within 30 days of today�s date otherwise the case will be dismissed.
The
costs are to be agreed or taxed by the Registrar. The defendant is to apply
to the Registrar within 14 days in the
event that costs are not agreed.
ass="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The direction orders that I make are:
1. Parties are to make discovery byry by lists within 7 days.
2. Parties are to inspect lists and may request further discovery within 14
days after discovery.
3. So far there appears to be no need for interrogatories, but pbut parties may
apply for leave to serve interrogatories.
4. Taintiffs are to file bundleundle of pleadings and certificate of
readiness within another 14 days after inspection
at (2) will have closed.
5. Plaintiffsto ask for date of trial eial either at the time of filing
bundle of pleadings at (4) or within another 7
days from filing the bundle
and certificate.
. Compliance with these directions mean that the plaintiffstiffs will at latest
ask for date of hearing within 42 days of
today�s date.
p class="Mso="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
7. Costs of this cation are granted to the dthe defendant against the
plaintiffs and must be paid within 30 days. In the
event of failure, the
defendant is to ask for listing for the plaintiffs to show cause why their
case� should not be
dismissed because of default in complying with the order
for costs, which order is mandatory.
Delivered this Tuesday 20th day of April 1999
At the High Court
Honiara
Sam Lungole-Awich
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1999/41.html
