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

Kera v Piosaga [2015] SBHC 67; HCSI-CC 417 of 2012 (3 August 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
FAUKONA J:

CC: NO. 417 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

JOHN KERA, ROBERT GHEMU AND WILLIAM –LEVE
(Representing themselves, Members of their
Families and several members of their Group B
Christian Fellowship Church – in Madou, Nazareth,
Vonga, Iriri, Kinamara and Buni (Sinai) Villages)
1st Claimants

AND:

JOSEPH LAMIA VODA, EDMUND OSOPO,
WILSON TUKE AND DAVID VODA -
(Representing themselves, members of their Families, and several Members of the Group B
of the Christian Fellowship Church in Bara-Ulu, Nusa Banga, Nusa Hope and BuleLavata Villages)
2nd Claimants

AND:

EDISON PIOSAGA, HINGTON GHEMU, DONY
GHEMU, PATRICK HOKOTO, PATTERSON
RUNIKERA, RUEVEN LEHE, EDWIN LATU, ONIMUS
GUA, FAITHFUL BEA, KENEDY MIABULE, ZEKELE
MAMU, ALEX PIOSASA, MOSES NINIKI, ZAKARIAH
BETI, ALLAN HALL, SILENT KOROHEKE, LAMUSASA
GUA, PETER MAMU, PEQU VOVOSO, GORDON
PABULU, MOSES PEDORO AND RITI PIOSASA -
(Representing themselves, their families, their tribes,
Community Leaders and Group A Members of the
Christian Fellowship Church of Madou and Buni Villages)
1ST Defendants

AND:

RODY MAEBULE, LAVE TUKE, EDWIN BIKU,
FRANK QEHOLO, ESAU UVELAMANA, ESAU
DELAKA, JOSEPH ONU, SAM KETO, SUNSHINE
BOLIKI, GOODNESS MANA, KAREN TUKE,
RIUTINA TUNURU, REV. ALEX AQORAU,
ITU SASA KEGUMULE, WILLIAM PINOMO,
FALLOWS LAMUPIO, ESAU ZAMAHITE,
MICHAEL ZAMA, DENSON BUTO, DAVID HITU,
NEPIA SAE, LEONARD KUSI, SELEMEN ENEKEVU,
JOEL PADAKOLO, ALERANA SUIUTA, JACK KEGU,
HENRY SAOKOLO, CHRIS HAPA, GEORGE KURI
AND LAWSON RAVAHU –
(Representing themselves, their families, their tribes,
Community Leaders and Group A members of the
Christian Fellowship Church of Baraulu, Nusa Banga,
Nusa Hope and Bulelavata Villages)
2ND Defendants

Date of Hearing: 3rd August 2015
Date of Judgment: 3rd August 2015

Mr M Pitakaka for the Claimants
No One for the Defendants

RULING

FAUKONA PJ: This is an application for Summary Judgment filed on 14th October, 2014 by the Claimant pursuant to Rule 9.57. In this case, the Defendants had filed a response by their Counsel ANT Legal Services on 31st January, 2013. In her response, the Counsel on record, affirmed receiving copies of the Claim on 13th January 2013 and on 21st January 2013 and will file defence and counter claim later.

2. Up until filing of this application on 14th October, 2014, there was no defence filed at all, time lapsed is one (1) year and 8 months.

3. The Claimants now come to this Court with an application for Summary Judgment to dismiss the Defendants' case in its entirety.

4. Since no defence was filed, the Court cannot ascertain the actual defence and facts that may have been pleaded therein. Therefore application for Default Judgment cannot be possible. However, no filing of defence can also mean anything from the Defendants to defend the claim.

5. The Claimants in the circumstances had utilised Rule 9.57 and 9.59 to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief sought. I therefore must grant the Orders sought.

ORDERS:

1. Order for summary judgment entered against all the Defendants.
   
2. Cost against the defendants on indemnity basis.
   

THE COURT