Boitou v Ieremia [2005] KIHC 52; 76-04 (3 October 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Case No. 76 of 2004

Between:

KORINAKO BOITOU
Petitioner

And:

EKUETA IEREMIA
Respondent

For the Plaintiff: Mr Glenn Boswell
For the Respondent: Mr Aomoro Amten

Date of Hearing: 3 October 2005

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

This is an unhappy dispute between estranged wife and husband. The wife, Korinako Boitou, has petitioned for divorce and applied for ancillary relief.

On 16 June I made an Order:

Order that - - - - - the respondent shew cause why:-

(1) the matrimonial property should not be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the petitioner and the respondent;

(2) an Order for the maintenance of the petitioner in the sum of $100 per week should not be made.

I had hoped that the parties might come to some agreement on these issues but they have not. They have however agreed a Statement of Facts:

The Petitioner and the Respondent by their solicitors herein agree that the following properties and assets were acquired during the term of the marriage and thereby form the matrimonial estate:

1. Land registered to the Respondent described as Teanimanoia 617i/1 in Bikenibeu;
   
2. Land registered to the Respondent described as Tekarake 651o/2u in Bikenibeu;
   
3. The matrimonial brick home situated at Teanimanoia
   
4. A fibre board house situated at Teanimanoia
   
5. A store building situated at Teanimanoia
   
6. Household furniture including
   
   • (a) 2 queen size beds
   • (b) Dining table and 6 chairs
   • (c) Wardrobe/closet
     
7. Kitchen utensils
   
8. Appliances including
   
   • (a) TV
   • (b) DVD player
   • (c) Fridge/freezer
   • (d) Stove
     
9. 4 fishing boats and associated equipment
   
10. 1 pleasure boat
    
11. 1 pickup vehicle
    
12. 1 truck
    
13. 1 bus
    
14. 1 Bank account in the name of the Respondent
    

Upon enquiry I was told that the Bank account, item 14, is now closed. The petitioner accepts that this is no longer an asset to be taken into account in the division of assets.

Last Monday I tried the question of an equal split or otherwise of the matrimonial property. The respondent was prepared to let his wife have 1/3: the petitioner wanted ½.

I heard the respondent’s evidence. I have concluded that his wife during the marriage had three children by the respondent, ran the home, provided for and looked after his needs and supported him generally including participation in his various businesses of fishing, buses and a store. Her support allowed him successfully to build them up. The respondent made complaints about the conduct of the petitioner in relation to the decline of the businesses and alleged she had mental illness (for the treatment of which he did not wish her to go to the hospital).

Considering the whole of the respondent’s evidence I remain of the view which I had expressed to the parties that there should be an equal split of the property between wife and husband. I shall make an order to that effect.

There remain the other issues set out in the Notice of Application for Ancillary Relief:

1. The Respondent provide alimony pending suit to the Petitioner.
   
2. That the Respondent provide maintenance for Ieremia Ekueta, being a child of the marriage aged 14 years;
   
3. The Respondent pay, on a decree for divorce, monthly or weekly sums for the maintenance of the Petitioner;
   
4. The Petitioner remain in the matrimonial home.
   

I hope very much that the parties may now be able to come to agreement on these matters. If they cannot I shall hear further evidence and submissions.

ORDER

In the absence of agreement as to a division of the various items of the joint matrimonial property the whole to be sold and the proceeds of the sale be divided equally between petitioner and respondent.

Dated the ......................... day of October 2005

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice