by Georgina Maka’a
A High Court judge has rejected a judicial review lawsuit brought against the Solomon Islands National University (SINU) by two former senior staff members who were terminated in 2023 over allegations of gross misconduct.
In a recent ruling, Justice Gina Nott declined to hear the claim filed by former Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Dr Jack Maebuta and former Dean of Nursing Verzilyn Isom under the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007.
Maebuta and Isom engaged private lawyer John Zama to challenge the legality of the disciplinary process that led to the termination of their employment in July 2023.
They were part of a group of five accused of defrauding SINU in a major printing procurement scheme established with a company called Wakaman Inc.
The other three were former Senior Marketing and Promotion Manager Estee Lonamei, Acting Property Manager Frank Lui and Finance Logistics/Enforcement Officer Glenn Huntly.
The allegations included inflated prices, incomplete or undelivered printing orders, questionable supplier quotations and payments that allegedly bypassed the university’s procurement and financial controls.
SINU said the alleged irregularities involved more than SBD$3.4 million in printing procurement.
After their suspension and eventual termination, Maebuta and Isom decided to seek judicial review – challenging their suspension, the disciplinary allegations and their termination.
They argued that the university’s actions were invalid, including because of alleged failures to follow disciplinary procedures and provide them with a fair opportunity to respond.
They also challenged the validity of the SINU Statutes, arguing that they had not been published in the Government Gazette as required by law.
Under Chapter 15.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a claimant seeking judicial review must satisfy a strict four-part threshold test at an initial screening conference before the matter can proceed to trial:
-
Is there an arguable case?
-
Are the claimants directly affected?
-
Was the claim filed without undue delay?
-
Is there no other remedy that resolves the matter fully and directly?
Justice Nott found that while Maebuta and Izom met the first three criteria, they failed the mandatory fourth requirement.
She ruled that judicial review is a public law remedy of last resort.
Furthermore, Justice Nott pointed out that the dispute was fundamentally an employment disagreement
She added Maebuta and Isom had accessible alternative remedies – specifically filing a complaint with the Trade Disputes Panel under the Unfair Dismissal Act [Cap 77] or launching a civil action for breach of contract (wrongful dismissal).
“Judicial review is a supervisory public law remedy,” the judge said.
“It is not ordinarily available where the claimant has another remedy which is capable of resolving the real matter in dispute fully and directly,” Justice Nott added.
“A claimant cannot avoid a statutory employment remedy merely by describing a dismissal as ultra vires, procedurally unfair, contrary to natural justice, or contrary to internal policy.”
Justice Nott ordered Maebuta and Izom to pay SINU’s legal costs.
