HIGH
COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil
Case No. 057 of 2000
SILAS MILIKADA AND PRESLEY WATTS
(Trading As JP Enterprises of P.O. Box R222 Honiara)
v<
ANTGHONA &
CENTRAL BANK OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
High
Court of Solomon Islands
Before:
F. O. Kabui, J
Civil
Case No. 057 of 20001
p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Hearing:
25 June, 2001
Judgment: 25th June, 2001
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
A & H
Lawyers for the Plaintiff�s
Defendants not present
JUDGMENT
(Kabui,
J):
This is an application by the Plaintiffs by Summons filed on 8th
June 2001. The Orders sought in the Summons are these-
1.
&nbbsp;&&nsp;; Tsp; That that the Plaintiffs have leave to enter Judgment against the
Defendant in the sum of $50,000.00
togewith est aper annum
from 1st June 2001 up to and including the date of paym payment.
2.
That Jutgmenenbe ed erainsgainst the Defendant in the sum of
$50,000.0 together with interest at 5% per
annum from 1st June 2001 up to
and including the date of payment.
3.t">3.
;&nspp; Tsat the Defendant dant pay the Plaintiffs' costs of and in connection
with this case.
4.
&nsp; & p;&nbp; Ssp; Such furtherthe oorde orders as the court thinks just.
>&nt">
This
application was brought under Order 14, ru4, rule 11 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules 1964 (the High Court
Rules). It is based upon facts set out
in the Plaintiffs' Writ of Summons, and Statement of Claim (amended). The
Summons
was also supported by facts set out in the affidavit filed by Mr.
Milikada on 8th June 2001.
The
facts
In or
about January 2001, the Plaintiffs iffs gave $80,000.00 to the Defendant to meet
the cost of the Defendant's wife
and his sister taking a trip to Australia.
The Defendant was then an employee of the Central Bank of Solomon Islands (C BSI).
The trip to Australia did not take place. The
Defendant immediately refunded $30,000.00 and invested the balance of
$50,000.00 by buying up Treasury Bills from the
CBSI. The treatment of the
initial $80,000.00 in his way was the result of an oral agreement between
the Plaintiffs and
the Defendant. The other term of that oral agreement was
that on the maturity of the Treasury Bills, the Defendant was to refund
the
$50,000.00 and would retain the interest earned on that sum. The $50,000.00
was to remain the property of the Plaintiffs'
at all times. The Treasury
Bills matured in the week commencing on 8th April 2001. The
Defendant has not since paid the $50,000.00 to the Plaintiffs upon demand.
By letter dated 30th May 2001, the Defendant admitted liability
and said he would pay his debt to he Plaintiffs' as soon as the CBSI
released
that sum of $50,000.00 plus interest to him. Perhaps for that
reason, the Defendant did not bother to appear in Court this
morning though
served on 12th June 2001, with a copy of he Plaintiffs� Summons.
In my view, the appropriate procedure for application for judgment on
admission of facts either on pleading or otherwise is governed by Order 34,
rule 6 of the High Court Rules. Rule 6 states-
��Any
party may at any stage of a cause or matter, where admissions of facts have
been made, either on the pleadings, or
otherwise, apply to the Court for
such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to,
without waiting
for the determination of any other question between the
parties; and the Court may upon such application make such order ,
or give
such judgment, as the Court may think just�...
/p>
Clearly,
in this case, the Defendant admitted liability by his letter of 30th
May 2001 before he filed his Memorandum of Appearance on 31st May
2001.In fact, the Memorandum of Appearance was signed the same date the
letter of admission of liability was signed
and dated by the Defendant. On
this basis, I would grant the application sought by the Plaintiffs in terms
of Order 34,
rule 6 f the High Court Rules. I do not think I can grant
interest at the rate of 5% as sought by the Plaintiffs'. There are
two
reasons. The first is that payment of 5% interest was not part of the oral
agreement between the parties. The second
is that the reason for the
non-payment of $50,000.00 was due o the advice of Mr. Ronia a CBSI's
employee who may have
a valid reason for the delay of payment. It would seem
that the delay is not the fault of the defendant. It may well be due
to the
Government's cash flow problem experienced on a daily basis in this country.
Apart from that, the application
is granted.
span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12.0pt; letter-spacing: -.1pt">F.
O. Kabui
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2001/38.html
