Raobati v Tamwera [2008] KIHC 17; Civil Case 185 of 2007 (3 July 2008)

In the High Court of Kiribati
Civil Jurisdiction
Held at Betio
Republic of Kiribati

High Court Civil Case 185 of 2007

Between:

Beneteta Raobati
Plaintiff

And:

Iaoniba Tamwera
Defendant

For the Plaintiff: Mr Raweita Beniata
No appearance for the Defendant, Ms Taoaba having been given leave to withdraw

Date of Hearing: 3 July 2008

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

This is a most unsatisfactory case which has cried out for settlement between the parties. It seemed that it could settle but on the day set for the hearing 2 July the defendant did not come to Court. His counsel, Ms Taoaba, said she could get no instructions from him. I set the case for mention again today or earlier if agreement between the parties were reached. Ms Taoaba this morning said she had failed in her attempts to contact her client: he knew of the hearing and was to come to Court. Ms Taoaba asked leave to withdraw which I gave her.

Resolution of the action is urgent as the plaintiff is due to leave in a few days for Fiji to take up a position at the Kiribati High Commission there and next week is a week of holidays to mark Independence.

The plaintiff and defendant lived together and have five children. The relationship has finished. The defendant has settled with another woman. This action arises out of disputes over the settlement of their financial affairs.

I have gone on with the hearing because of the urgency of the matter: the plaintiff should not be deprived of relief because of the absence of the defendant.

The plaintiff has given evidence. I have received a draft document (Exhibit P1) which was to be the basis of a settlement. I have read the pleadings. I use the pleadings Exhibit P1 and the plaintiff’s evidence as the basis of coming to a decision.

I am not prepared to give the plaintiff a share in the business as she has asked for: it would n ot work: the plaintiff and defendant could not be expected to cooperate, work together. All I can do is to take into account in fixing a figure the plaintiff’s estimate – "off the top of her head" – that the business is worth $60,000. I discount that figure heavily.

In the draft terms of settlement the plaintiff was prepared to accept $33,076.65 as damages. I shall allow her in all, $40,000.00.

There will be judgment for the plaintiff for $40,000.00 with costs.

As I have proceeded in an unusual way and in haste because of the urgency to come to a decision and in the absence of the defendant (although I suspect he has kept away in an effort to defeat the plaintiff’s claim) I give the defendant liberty to apply within one month.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice