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

Stephenson v Total Logistics & Support Service Ltd [2023] SBHC 22; HCSI-CC 132 of 2022 (12 May 2023)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil case No. 132 of 2022

BETWEEN

FREDERICK GEORGE STEPHENSON
Claimant

AND:

TOTAL LOGISTICS & SUPPORT SERVICE LIMITED
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 30 March 2023 and 02 May 2023 (Closing Written Submissions)
Date of Judgment: 12 May 2023

Mr. Radclyffe for the Claimant
Mr. Lagobe for the Defendant

JUDGMENT ON A DEBT RECOVER CLAIM

1. Claimant owns a commercial property situated on PN 191-041-224, 191-041-234 and 191-041-225 (“the property”). Defendant leased the said property from the claimant, initially at $85,000.00 per month. Later the monthly rentals increased from $85,000.00 to $130,000.00 per month. Statement of case did not particularise the subsequent rent increases. But there are evidences in the Trial Book (“TB”) that shows the increase in rental from ($85,000.00^[1], to $95,000.00^[2], to $100,000.00^[3], to $120,000.00^[4] to $130,000.00^[5].
2. Claimant filed this debt recovery claim seeking reliefs to recover from the defendant the sum of $487,564.55. Statement of case broadly pleads that the $487, 546.55 is in respect of rent arrears, electricity charges and other expenses. There are no particulars for the rent arrears in the pleadings – particulars like which month(s) have rental arrears. Similarly, there are no details in the pleadings about electricity charges for which month and how much as well as no details for the other expenses. But in the evidence, I can see the breakdown of the rents, electricity charges and other expenses.
3. At page 39 - 40 of the TB, I can see a breakdown evidence of claimant’s record of rental arrears – Rental outstanding reconciliation as at 18/06/2021 for the defendant. That evidence tells me and confirmed by Mr Stephenson’s oral evidence that some of the tenants to whom the defendant sub-leased parts of the property have made direct payments to the claimant – example Pari, SITCO, Solomon Islands Commodities, Cool Solomons and East Guadalcanal Constituency etc. The record on page 39 – 40 of TB shows that the defendant had an outstanding owed for Ranadi yard (“the property”) in the sum of $193,005.00.
4. Then another record of the arrears is at page 43 of TB. This is the evidence that shows the amount pleaded in the statement of case reliefs ($487,546.55). So, this is the evidence that I will concentrate on, as it is directly linked to the amount pursued for recovery in the claim.
5. The evidence before me shows that defendant vacated the property in April 2021. The record in the invoice at page 43, says rental was owed for May and June 2021 ($24,000.00). Outstanding rental as of July 2021 was $193,005.00. This must be the outstanding I noted at page 39 – 40 above. Then I also heard evidence that the claimant collects rental money directly from sub-lease tenants. Defendant say that the sub-lease tenants should pay to him and then he will pay to the claimant. Claimant admitted receiving money directly from sub-lease tenants. So, this will affect/reduce the $487,546.55 claimed against the defendant. This argument by the defendant has some merit. Stephenson’s oral evidence confirmed that claimant received rent monies from the defendant’s sub-leased tenants directly. Claimant agreed in sworn evidence that he sanctioned sub-leasing arrangement made by the defendant^[6]. I also repeat paragraph 3 above.
6. Other arears in the invoice at page 43, are – clean up yard and machinery and truck hire ($54,450.00); clean offices warehouse and corridor by women church groups ($6,600.00); rubbish dump fees for 18 loads ($1,800.00); replace locks for doors and door locks ($3,800.00) unpaid electricity invoices ($116,083.55); rent from UNICEF ($24,000.00) and clean up yard and warehouse, dump rubbish and security ($63,808.00). Defendant denied all these charges and there is no independent evidence produced by claimant. The only arrears, the defendant agreed to is $280,000.00.
7. Defendant admitted owing $280,000.00 to the claimant because Zuzua International Ltd (one of defendant’s sub-leased tenants) has yet to pay to defendant $280,000.00 in sub-lease rentals (See page 64 TB). Once Zuzua paid to the defendant, then defendant will give that money to claimant. That was the practise under the agreement, as I deduced from the evidence.

Practice under the agreement from evidence

8. The practice is that the defendant leased the property from the claimant. The defendant then blocked the property into rooms and sub-leased to other sub-tenants (blocking of rooms is implied from evidence). The defendant then collects rent money from its sub-lease tenants. And pays rent to the claimant.
9. Claimant admits he collects rent directly from defendant’s sub-leased tenants. Claimant admits he sanctioned defendant’s sub-leasing arrangement. Direct collection of rent money must impact on the total arrears sum claimed in the claim. And so, I am satisfied on the balance of probability that the amount owed is $280,000.00. Defendant must pay this amount to the claimant with interest, with or without Zuzua rent monies.
10. So, I conclude that the outstanding amount that claimant is entitled to recover in arrears for rent, electricity and other charges is $280,000.00. Claimant shall recover that from the deposit money and any of the defendant’s property left behind at the claimant’s property. I note in evidence that claimant has sold a vehicle belonging to the defendant. Defendant has to pay the remaining balance, after any off-setting by claimant. Claimant is entitled to recover half of the cost in this proceeding, plus interest at 5%. Order accordingly.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

^[1] Page 15 TB.
^[2] Page 16 and 17 TB.
^[3] Page 21 and 22 TB.
^[4] Page 28 TB.
^[5] Page 29 TB.
^[6] See paragraph 6 of sworn statement by Stephenson at page 11 of TB.