Iotumeta v Tarawa Motors [2007] KIHC 146; Civil Case 33 of 2007 (28 November 2007)

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

High Court Civil Case 33 of 2007

Between:

Ruta Iotumeta
Plaintiff

And:

Tarawa Motors
Defendant

For the Plaintiff: Mr Mantaia Kaongotao
For the Defendant: Mr Banuera Berina

Date of Hearing: 27 November 2007

JUDGMENT

At the hearing of this action yesterday no evidence was called. The facts I recite come from pleadings, from discussion with counsel and from the documents they shewed me.

The management team at the defendant Tarawa Motors had a meeting on 7th December 2006. Dissatisfaction was expressed about the performance of the administrative staff. It was decided to terminate the employment of each administrative staff member but to invite him/her to apply again for a job, along with outside applicants. These facts come from the letter from the Managing Director, Ms Joyce Chris, to the plaintiff dated 8th December to which was attached a copy of the minutes of the meeting of 7th December. Paragraph 5 of the letter:-

However, payment of your salary for the month of December will be paid out to you by the company, until 08 January 2007.

The plaintiff did apply again but she was unsuccessful.

Despite the promise to pay a month’s salary the plaintiff was paid nothing. Her "salary for the month of December", agreed to total $448 was, without her knowledge or consent, put towards reducing her indebtedness on a loan to the defendant. This came out at the hearing.

The plaintiff had been paid weekly. No written contract of service. Her entitlements are to be determined at common law. As the plaintiff was paid weekly, strictly she was entitled only to one week’s salary in lieu of notice. She was to be given four weeks. In that regard she was to be treated generously.

Mr Kaongotao complained that in February, to support a loan to the plaintiff from the DBK, the defendant had written a letter to the DBK to the effect that the plaintiff was a permanent employee: she should not have been dismissed 10 months later. In February 2006 the plaintiff was a permanent employee and remained so for another 10 months. The letter was not an undertaking that the plaintiff would be employed indefinitely. Mr Kaongotao’s complaint is unfounded.

The defendant acted, in law, quite properly in the way in which it terminated the plaintiff’s employment. She had the opportunity to apply for re-employment. She took the opportunity but was not successful. However disappointed the plaintiff may be not to have a job back, she has no remedy at all.

She is entitled to be paid her salary for four weeks. She has no other entitlement. As the defendant should not arbitrarily have put the salary towards paying off a loan, the plaintiff should now receive interest. The salary amount to $448. Interest at 5% for 10½ months is something over $20. As I told counsel I would, I round up the figures to achieve a total of $500.

There will be judgment for the plaintiff for $500.

Dated the 28th day of November 2007

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice