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

Karihanua v Attorney General [2014] SBHC 49; HCSI-CC 78 of 2012 (5 May 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction

Between:

SAM KARIHANUA
Claimant

And:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(on behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructure
and Development)
1st Defendant

And:

HENRY PIKA
2nd Defendant

For the Claimant: M. Haurii
For the 1st & 2nd Defendants: R. Firigeni

Date of hearing: 5 May 2014
Date of Judgment: 5 May 2014

RULING

Apaniai, PJ:

1. This is an application by the 1st defendant ("Applicant") to set aside a summary judgment obtained against it by the claimant ("Respondent") on the 11 June 2013.
   
2. The Respondent was the owner of a vehicle registration number AB6767. The vehicle was hired by the Ministry of Infrastructure & Development ("MID") for use by the 2nd defendant who was then the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Police & Correctional Services. During the course of its usage by the 2nd defendant, the vehicle got damaged beyond repair.
   
3. As a result of the damage, the Respondent filed a category B claim against the Applicant and 2nd defendant claiming $125,000.00 as damages for the value of the vehicle and $244,800.00 as damages for loss of business. The 2nd defendant had died leaving the Applicant as the only defendant in the claim.
   
4. On the 11 June 2013, summary judgment was entered against the Applicant for the sum of $369,800.00 after hearing arguments from counsel for the Respondent and counsel for the Applicant.
   
5. The Applicant now applies to have the judgment set aside and the claim set down for trial.
   
6. Mr. Robert Firigeni, of counsel for the Applicant, argues that the summary judgement was entered in breach of Rule 15.12 23 and should be set aside. Rule 15.12.23 provides that no summary judgment is to be entered against the Crown in any proceeding without a trial.
   
7. Mr. Haurii, of counsel for the Respondent, submits that the application is misconceived and should be dismissed. He submits that the summary judgment was a final judgment and that the only way to dislodge it is by way of appeal.
   
8. In my view, Mr. Haurii's argument accords with the law. Although an application for summary judgment is an interlocutory application, any judgment obtained after hearing argument on such application is a final judgment and the only way to dislodge it is to appeal against the judgment.
   
9. The test as to finality of judgments was put by Lord Alverstone C.J in Bozson v Altrinchan Urban District Council [1903] UKLawRpKQB 44; [1903] 1 K.B. 547 at 548 thus,
   

"It seems to me that the real test for determining this question to be this: Does the judgment or order, as made, finally dispose of the rights of the parties? If it does, then I think it ought to be treated as a final order; but if it does not it is then in my opinion, an, interlocutory order."

10. In the present case, the summary judgment had awarded the remedies sought in the claim in favour of the Respondent who is the claimant. It had ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent damages in the sum of $369,800.00, which is the relief sought in the claim. That judgment had finally settled the rights of the Respondent and the Applicant. It was a final judgment. As such, the only way to dislodge it is by way of an appeal.
    
11. Accordingly, the application is dismissed and the Applicant shall pay the costs of the Respondent on standard basis.
    

THE COURT

_________________________
James Apaniai
Puisne Judge