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

Solomon Islands National University v Parapolo [2015] SBHC 94; HCSI-CC 359 of 2014 (4 November 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Faukona PJ)

CIVIL CASE NO. 359 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

SOLOMON ISLANDS NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
Claimant

AND:

DANIEL ASHWIN PARAPOLO
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 28th September 2015
Date of Decision: 4th November 2015.

Mr A. Radclyffe for the Claimant
Mr A. Hou for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

Faukona PJ: A claim in (Category A) was filed on 27th October 2014 by the Claimant. In the claim, the Claimant seeks several orders. They are, that the Defendant his relative, servants or agents vacates the Claimants house number K3-38 at Kukum Campus immediately. That the Defendant pay to the Claimant mesne profits at a rate of $1500.00 per month from 12th September 2012 to the date the property is vacated; and interest and of course costs.

Facts:

2. The Claimant is the highest academic institution in Solomon Islands, and is the owner of a fixed term estate in the area of land comprising the Kukum Campus, Honiara. On the land is a house belong to the Claimant and is numbered K3-38 (the Premises)

3. The Defendant was employed by the Claimant's predecessor, Solomon Islands College of High Education (SICHE). It was a term of his employment contract that he be permitted to occupy the premises with his family while he was employed by SICHE.

4. On 6th August 2012, the Defendant was dismissed of his employment and was given notice to vacate the Premises by 12th September 2012. His right to occupy the premises ceased on that date. Despite several requests to vacate the premises the Defendant refused to leave.

5. The Defendant had given excuses to remain in the premises. One of which, that he had referred a claim to the Trade Dispute Panel (TDP) for unfair dismissal. Secondly that there was an understanding in a meeting between himself and the Chairman of SICHE Board that he would remain in the premises until his case is heard and determined by TDP, and is based on humanitarian ground.

6. There is no evidence at all to confirm or ascertain what the Chairman of SICHE actually said in a meeting as asserted by the Defendant. The best evidence is production of a minute of the meeting which adopted any resolution or an understanding. The evidence before court is merely coming from the Defendant himself as a mere assertion. Even a letter from the vice Chancellor on 27th May 2013 was yet to be ascertained by the Chairperson.

7. Since 13th August 2012, when the complaint for unfair dismissal was filed until now the Trade Dispute Panel has yet to determine the case. Three years have gone and still no case is heard. Meantime there is no schedule of hearing cases drawn by the Chairlady of the Trade Dispute Panel. How many more months before that Office become functioning cannot be calculated; it may take months or a year more.

8. In midst of all these, an odd situation arise, that whilst occupying the Claimant's premises the Defendant also is engaged working for another firm. There is no rent paid and has given the Claimant's employee hardships to find accommodation.

9. The Counsel for the Defendant make reference to section 6 (4) of the Unfair Dismissal Act to argue that there is possibility that the Panel might make recommendation for reinstatement once the Defendant's complaint is well founded.

10. I do not accept that contention, however, the Trade Dispute Panel can only recommend reinstatement in the event that unfair dismissal has been proved. It cannot order reinstatement. Mr Radclyffe has affirmed his client's stand that even if the Panel recommends reinstatement the Claimant will not agree. Mr Radclyffe's letter to the Defendant's Solicitor on 13th February 2014 was plain and concise on this point.

11. On the date of hearing of this case, the Defendant still occupies the premises and has accumulated mesne profits at $1,500.00 per month which must be paid by the Defendant until the premises is vacated. If upon receipt of Mr Radclyffe's letter, the Defendant vacated forthwith there could not have been accumulation of mass amount in mesne profits. Indeed the Defendant is creating real problems for himself. All his arguments are grounded on many of his letters, which were misconceived of good administration and law.

12. With all that I have reason out, I must award judgment in favour of the Claimant.

Orders:

1. Order that the Defendant, his relatives, servants or agents vacate the Claimant's house number K3-38 at Kukum Campus with immediate effect.

2. Order that the Defendant pay to the Claimant mesne profits at the rate of $1,500.00 per month from 12th September 2012 to the date the property is vacated.

3. With interest of 5%.

4. Cost to be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant on standard basis.

The Court.