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

Holo v Mapo Devepment Company [2013] SBHC 40; HCSI-CC 92 of 2011 (24 April 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Faukona J).

Civil Case No. 92 of 2011.

BETWEEN:

LAWRENCE HOLO and MASON WATE
Claimant

AND:

MAPO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
1st Defendant

AND:

PACIFIC VENTURE (SI) COMPANY LTD
2nd Defendant

Date of Hearing: 24th April, 2013.
Date of Ruling: 24th April, 2013.

Mr. Pehu for the Claimant.
Mr. J Keniapisia for the Defendants.

RULING.

Faukona J: This is an application by the Counsel for the Claimant for adjournment. On the outset the Counsel, as a matter of opening remarks states that he would call one witness Mr. Mason Wate, who sworn a joint sworn statement with the first Claimant to be cross examined.

2. After assessing the evidence by the second Claimant, Mr. Pehu applies to the Court to adjourn the trial so that he could call Mr. Holo, who at that time was residing in his village in South Malaita. The basic reason among others is that there were no notices of cross-examination of witnesses served on them. On the other, hard Mr. Keniapisia argues notices have been served on 25th October, 2012.

3. The trial was set for two days. To commence on 24th April, 2013 and continue on 26th April, 2013. On the previous date of adjournment, another Counsel from the same law firm Mr. Rano attended. In this hearing Mr. Pehu does attend.

4. What transpires is that one of the deponents of the joint sworn statement is called and the other is not. A crucial situation is if one deponent of a joint sworn statement has been called to be cross-examined, then normal expectation that he understands the entire truth of the facts deposed. In this case, the witness tends to refer some answers to the other deponent who is not present.

5. The difficulty now is that the witness to be called resides in small Malaita, whilst those witnesses for the Defendants are already present in Court and they came all the way from South Malaita as well.

6. It seems right to my mind that I would not entertain a part heard matter and adjourn for a long period. My diary has been booked until 29th October, 2013. Should this case be adjourned it would either be at the end of October or early November. Indeed, that is a long period of adjournment.

7. A very significant point is that if Mr. Wate could not fully comprehend what he deposed together in a joint sworn statement with another, then why deposed a joint sworn statement at all. It would seem proper in such circumstances to depose two separate sworn statements to lessen a complicate situation.

8. I agree with Mr. Keniapisia that the Claimant Counsels are not proactive to advance the case forward. They even confuse themselves by emailing whether this hearing is for PTC or trial. The Claimant is represented by a law firm with more than one Counsel practicing. If Mr. Pehu does not know the status of the case it is expected of him to consult with Mr. Rano who last attended the mention date.

9. In my humble view two deponents who swore a joint sworn statement should have the same equal knowledge of the facts deposed; and that is expected of them, and that is the purpose for having sworn a joint sworn statement. In such situation, what differences could be expected of the second deponent to say more. What else more left for him to raise at cross examination. Perhaps Mr. Pehu is right just to call one witness and that should suffice.

10. With that, I have exercised discretion in the best interest of justice to refuse the application for adjournment; the trial should continue.

The Court.