Development Bank of Kiribati v Takaua [2010] KIHC 125; High Court Civil Case 182 of 2009 (11 November 2010)

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

High Court Civil Case 182 of 2009

Between:

Development Bank of Kiribati
Plaintiff

And:

Amatia Takaua
1st Defendant

Teretia Rikare
2nd Defendant

For the Plaintiff: Ms Batitea Tekanito
For the 1st Defendant: Ms Abunaba Takabwebwe
For the 2nd Defendant: Mr Mantaia Kaongotao

Dates of Hearing: 11 November 2010

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

The first defendant took out a loan with the plaintiff in 2003 for $3.244.00. The term was 24 months: repayment by instalments of $153.77 per month. No repayments ever made. The loan was secured by the guarantee of the second defendant and by a Bill of Sale. Ms Tekanito tells me that when the plaintiff went to seize the items under the Bill of Sale they had all gone. No notice was given to the guarantor until, it is agreed, September 2009.

The defendants have no defence to the claim. The only question is whether they should be liable for interest on the loan from the first default in 2003 or from some later time.

I have already complained in other cases about the Bank waiting for years, letting interest at 12% per annum mount up and up (HCCC 97/09, DBK v Bineba Kabuta and Kabongnga Tawita referred to in HCCC 203/08, DBK v Terooti Tengeri et ors). I make the same complaint in this case. The default occurred when the first repayment was not made. Ms Tekanito has argued it arose only when Notice of Default was given but I reject the argument. The Notice is – as the word shews – only a notification of a default which has already, some time earlier, occurred.

I shall wield the broad axe again and for the first defendant allow, in this case, interest for three years up to the date of the issue of the writ, 13 November 2009. Counsel are to calculate the precise amount for which I should enter judgment.

As for the second defendant, the guarantor: she was given notice for the first time in September 2009. Although Ms Tekanito has argued she should be liable for interest since default, in the absence of notice to her which could have been easily given, that would be quite unconscionable. The second defendant should be liable for the principal and interest on it for one year. Again I shall leave counsel to work out the amount for which judgment should be entered.

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $4,352.52.

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $3,428.47.

The plaintiff to have costs fixed at $50.00.

[The intent of these judgments is that the plaintiff may recover no more than $4,352.52 and costs $50.00 of which no more than $3,428.47 and costs $50.00 may be from the second defendant.]

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice