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

Tada v Tada [2000] SBHC 42; HC-CC 319 of 1999 (27 October 2000)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 319 of 1999

ENNIE PELOPI TADA

-V-

PELOPI TADA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(LUNGOLE-AWICH, J)

Hearing: 27 October 2000
Judgment: 27 October 2000

Ex tempore

P Lavery for the Petitioner
Respondent not in Court

JUDGMENT

(LUNGOLE-AWICH, J: The petitioner, Ennie Tada, presented her case for divorce today Friday, 27.10.2000, in the absence of the respondent, Pelopi Tada, because the respondent who had been properly served with notice to attend trial today, did not attend and there has been no explanation about his non attendance. The case had been adjourned on three occasions; twice because the respondent did not attend and on one of the occasions, my learned brother Kabui J warned that the case would proceed on the next hearing date even if the respondent would not attend.

The Petitioner testified about adultery of the husband, with two women, one was their housemaid, and that the respondent got children with both women, he no longer lives at the matrimonial home, he lives with both women at Paqe, Ranongga, he however, provides for the education and other needs of the two younger children. The petitioner asked that custody of the children be given to the respondent with the right of the petitioner to access. The couple married on 5.2.1982 at Paqe, Ranongga, Western province, and are domiciled in Solomon Islands. The respondent is said to have left the matrimonial home at Panatina, Honiara.

There was of course no evidence to contradict that of the petitioner. The Court is satisfied that the petitioner has proved adultery by her husband with the two women, and that the marriage is now all gone, it has broken down irretrievably. I grant the decree nisi for divorce which may be made absolute after 3 months. I further grant custody of the two minor children to the respondent, the eldest is now a major, custody order is not required about him. The custody granted to the respondent is subject to the right of the petitioner to access to the children. Claim for matrimonial property was not included in the petition, no order about matrimonial property is made. Costs have not been asked for, again no order as to costs is made.

Pronounced this Friday the 27^th day of October 2000
At the High Court
Honiara

Sam Lungole-Awich
Judge