Global Imports & Exports v Kiribati Supply Company Ltd [2011] KIHC 65; Civil Case 46 of 2010 (17 August 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 46 OF 2010

CIVIL JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

GLOBAL IMPORTS & EXPORTS LTD
APPLICANT

AND:

KIRIBATI SUPPLY COMPANY LTD
DEFENDANT

FOR APPLICANT: TAOING TAOABA
FOR DEFENDANT:
Date of Hearing: 17 AUGUST 2011

JUDGMENT ON COST

Hearing on Cost is finally done today. There was no one representing the defendant. During our last hearing I told Counsel for the plaintiff to do the service onto the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Kiribati Supply Company and the General Manager. Only the Chairman was served. Counsel stated that they could not effect service on the General Manager as they no longer have an office. Their building has been dismantled. When the Chairman came he requested permission to be excused from the case as he is no longer the Director of the defendant. All of them, directors had formally resigned from being directors. I therefore excused him.

The Court was then left with Counsel for the plaintiff only. At first I was reluctant to continue with the hearing but Ms Taoaba persuaded the Court to hear the application now. The basis of her persuasion was that this was not the first time for this application to be listed for hearing. We had tried more than five times in our previous hearings but the hearings were adjourned for the defendant, because they were either not ready or did not turn up. This is the sixth time. I agree that it is too much. Cost will be decided now.

I went through the claim for cost with Counsel for the applicant, item by item. I remembered in one of our previous hearings for cost (on the 8 June 2011) that counsel for the defendant stated that they only dispute cost for the client's (applicant) trips to Tarawa in 2009 and 2010. They refused to accept these two trips as they thought the applicant should have waited for the payment to their account as per the agreement. The argument from the plaintiff was that the defendant failed to honor their agreement many times therefore the plaintiff had to come. The two trips were a result of the defendant's failure to honor their agreement. I adjourned that hearing for the plaintiff to file in their affidavit in support of this. The affidavit was filed and served on the defendant's lawyer. They were to file a response. They never did. When the matter was called on again, almost two months later (20/7/11) the defendant's lawyer withdrew from the case. She informed the court that the defendant will instruct the Attorney General's office to continue with the matter. Nei Ereta from AG knew nothing about this.

This has to be finalized now. We can't keep adjourning this. After going through the client's cost with Counsel for the plaintiff, I decided to agree with it. I found that the purpose of the trips was to chase up with the defendant's payment. Since they failed to honor their agreement for payment the plaintiff had to travel to Tarawa to follow it up. I agree with all part of this claim except for dinner and lunch expenses in 2009. These are reduced to $20 each. Therefore the amount claimed is $2,422.20.

Counsel's cost is $1280 plus client's cost for the two trips as $2,422.20. Therefore total amount claimed is $3702.20. Cost is allowed at $3,702.20.

Dated 17 August 2011

Tetiro M Semilota
Commissioner