Smith v Tabwi [2014] KIHC 12; Civil Appeal 9 of 2014 (6 May 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI 2014

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2014
Held at Kiritimati

BETWEEN

JACK SMITH
APPELLANT

AND

AANA TABWI
RESPONDENT

Before: The Hon Chief Justice Sir John Muria

5 May 2014

Mr Raweita Beniata for Appellant
Mr Teetua Tewera for Respondent

JUDGMENT

Muria CJ: This appeal can be disposed of briefly.

The appellant's case is that the Magistrate's Court was wrong in finding that the respondent was the owner of the aluminium roofings which the appellant obtained on hire-purchase agreement from BSL. The appellant failed to pay for the roofings. The BSL went to repossess the roofings from the appellant who was in Tarawa then, but the roofings were kept at his father-in-law's premises. However the roofings were already given to the respondent by her father (the appellant's father-in-law). The BSL then went after the roofings only to find that they were already used by the respondent. BSL was not able to retrieve the roofings and so it entered into a new hire-purchase agreement with the respondent in respect of these roofings. BSL transferred the hire-purchase agreement on the 30 roofings to the respondent who paid for them.

The nature of hire-purchase agreement is that no property in the goods obtained is vested in the hire-purchaser until the goods were paid for. The roofings in this case were taken on hire-purchase from BSL by the appellant. Until the roofings were fully paid for, the property in those roofings remained with BSL.

Since the appellant failed to pay, he was in breach of his contract with BSL who was entitled to retake the roofings. BSL did so. Unfortunately the respondent took the roofings from where the appellant kept them. BSL who was the owner of the roofings was entitled to and did enter into a new hire-purchase arrangement with the respondent over the 30 roofings. The respondent paid for the roofings under the hire-purchase agreement.

The Magistrate's Court was right to hold that the respondent was the owner of the roofings.

I do not need to deal with the other grounds of appeal since the rejection of ground one (1)of the appeal is sufficient to dispose of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Dated the 6th day of May 2014

SIR JOHN MURIA
Chief Justice