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

Apia v Attorney General [2024] SBHC 145; HCSI-CC 604 of 2017 (1 October 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 604 of 2017

BETWEEN:

DR. REGINAL APIA
Claimant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
First Defendant
(Representing the Director of Fisheries)

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Second Defendant
(Representing the Commissioner of Police)

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third Defendant
(Representing the DPP)

AND:

JAMES TERI, JOHN LEQATA, Fourth Defendant SAMSON MAENIUTA AND PETER LAUSU’S
Fourth Defendant

AND:

DC JOSEPH ROSCAL, DC REGINAL ISIOSI, DC PETER AIKE, DC EDWARD VILAKA
Fifth Defendant

AND:

SUPT. MOSTYN MANAU, SGT. MICHAEL ALUVOLOMO, PAUL MANAU, ANDREW SIRIURAO AND NATHANIEL KABAGITA.
Sixth Defendant

AND:

LINDSAY KELIARA, PAUL JNR FANASIA, EDWARD HONIWALA
Seventh Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Representing Solomon Islands Government)
Eighth Defendant

Date of Hearing: 26 September 2024
Date of Judgment: 1 October 2024

For the Claimant: Rano W
For the 4^th, 5^th, 6^th & 7^th Defendants: NA
For the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd & 8^th Defendants: Fakarii F

JUDGMENT ON ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

Kouhota PJ
The Claim

On 28^th June 2021, the Court gave judgment for Claimant in his claim against the Defendants for;

1. False imprisonment
2. Unlawful detention of chattel and
3. Malicious prosecution

The Claimant’s claim were as follows;

1. Damages for economic loss in excess of but say $50,000,000- 00
2. Damages for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution in excess of, but say $3,000,000-00.
3. Aggravated Damages in excess of, but say $2,000,000-00,
4. Exemplary Damages in excess of, but say $1,000,000.00

The Court gave judgment for the Claimant but, order damages to be assessed. The Defendant appeal against the Court decision to the SI Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the Court decision and approved the order for Assessment of damages. This is the assessment of damage hearing. Parties were given the opportunity to submit written submission for the purposes of the

Assessment of damages. Counsel for Claimant filed his submission in which he outline the loss suffered by the Claimant and put moneytary amounts of damages suffered by the Claimant.

Counsel for the Defendant in her submission disputed the amount of damages that should be

Awarded to the Claimant. Counsel submit that the Claimant had not provided sufficient evidence to guide the Court provide a quantum for loss of earning per day and the Court should note at the time of beec-de-mer the Claimant was based in Lord Howe Island and was not working at his clinic and the clinic was not operating at that time and submit the Claimant should only be awarded nominal damages. No evidence was filed to support counsel for the Defendants submission.

In any event liability was already establish against the Defendant and all that need to be determine now is the quantum ramifactus. For the assessment of damage hearing, Dr. Apia filed a sworn statement in support of his claim on 5^th October 2023 giving details of the amount he claimed. The sworn statement contained specific details of the losses he suffered. These included loss he suffered from his medical practice and his other business such as his bechdemer business. The Claimant also submit to the Court a detail breakdown of the losses he suffered as a result of his unlawful arrest and imprisonment, aggravated damages, malicious prosecution loss of earning from bedchemer harvesting and loss of propery among others. His total claim for all these losses amounted to $45,625,082.65.

The Defendant in support of their opposing the Claimants claim in the assessment of damages relied on the sworn statement of Edward Honiwala and Francina Ega disputing the amount submitted for assessment of damages hearing. I had considered the sworn statements of the parties and I am prepared to accept the detail evidence of the Claimant as it specified the damages he suffered. The Defendant produce no evidence to dispute the amounts so it seem they are basically challenging the Claimants claim for damages on technical grounds.

I had taken into account the cases authorise referred to by counsel for the parties on principle relating to damages. I take into account the damages awarded by Courts in this jurisdiction and other jurisdiction referred to by counsels. In considering this I remind myself that cases authorities referred were decided many years back. I therefore considered that the amount of damages referred to are not relevant today. I take into account the amount of damages awarded by the Courts in this jurisdiction for some of the head of damages assessed and based on those, reduced the amount of general damages claimed by the Claimant. In considering the damages to be awarded I also take into account the standing and status of the Claimant in the community and the damages he suffered to his reputation and harm caused to his business. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, I consider awarding the following damages as fair,

Cost for the Claimant to be assessed in not agreed.

Cost for the Claimant to be assessed if not agreed

THE COURT
Emmanuel Kouhota
Puisne Judge