Kaetitaeka v Arorae Island Council [2024] KIHC 5; Civil Case 72 of 2017 (9 January 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 72 OF 2017

BETWEEN:
TAWERIO KAETITAEKA
Plaintiff

AND:
ARORAE ISLAND COUNCIL
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 2 & 23 NOVEMBER 2023
Date of Judgment: 9 JANUARY 2024

Appearances: Mr. Raweita Beniata for the Plaintiff
Ms. Manrongo Kararaonang for the Defendant

JUDGMENT - LIABILITY

Introduction:

1. By Writ of Summons dated 18 July 2018, the plaintiff sued the defendant for violating his right to movement when he was forced to leave or banished from Arorae Island. The message was relayed to him by a copy of the defendant’s letter dated 15 March 2017 addressed to the Secretary of the Ministry of Women, Youth and Social Affairs (MWYSA). The Mayor of the Council and a representative of the Old Men Association signed the letter. The plaintiff departed Arorae Island on 16 March 2017 and left behind his wife, who worked there as a court clerk, and a son. In January 2018, after nine months of separation, he was reunited with his family in South Tarawa.
   

Evidence and Analysis

2. The plaintiff submitted that the reasons why he was removed from Arorae Island relate to the allegation of the Island Council’s clerk that the plaintiff had indecently assaulted her once in 2016. Other contributing factors are that he was seen as a troublemaker on the island and was drunk after the Old Men Association warned him not to. In the defendant’s full council meeting, the defendant made the decision that the plaintiff should leave the island. The plaintiff was not invited to the full council meeting.
   
3. The plaintiff further gave evidence that the defendant paid for his airfare. The policeman handed him the letter from the defendant. As mentioned above, the letter was not addressed to him but to the Secretary of MWYSA. On the day of the flight, the same policeman escorted him to the airport to await his flight. He left Arorae that day and could not return as he believed he was banished from the island.
4. The plaintiff also gave evidence to prove his claim for damages, but these will be considered later if liability against the defendant is established.
   
5. When cross-examined, the plaintiff confirmed that the letter was addressed to the Secretary of MWYSA. He also confirmed that no force or threat was directed at him, but the letter informed him to leave. He later confirmed that the letter did not force him to leave but requested him to leave. When asked about the last paragraph of the letter which mentioned that the defendant requested assistance from the ministry regarding the problem with the plaintiff and that the letter did not directly tell him to leave the island, the plaintiff nodded in agreement.
   
6. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim and stated that the plaintiff was not forced to leave the island. The letter was not addressed to him but to the Secretary of the Ministry to seek assistance from their mother ministry regarding this problem caused by the plaintiff and their decision that the plaintiff should leave the island. In the letter, the defendant explained that the plaintiff had caused trouble to a married lady and that they believed the plaintiff should leave the island to avoid being attacked by the villagers and the husband.
7. The defendant did not deny that they paid for the plaintiff’s air ticket, but they said they did not force him to leave; the plaintiff could have chosen not to go. The plaintiff chose to leave the island on his own. He agreed to take a ride on the policeman’s motorbike to the airport when that policeman offered him the ride when he delivered the copy of the letter. When they reached the airport, the plaintiff was moving freely as he was not handcuffed or restrained from moving. That policeman always goes to the airport when there is a flight to do his regular checks; that was why he went to the airport that time. The policeman did not handcuff or force the plaintiff to ride with him to the airport.
   

Conclusion:

8. In light of the above, this Court accepts the defendant’s evidence; there was no threat or force upon the plaintiff to leave the island. The letter was addressed to the Secretary to seek the ministry’s assistance regarding their decision that the plaintiff should leave the island. He was given a copy of that letter and his ticket was paid, but this does not mean he was forced to leave. The policeman did not escort him to the airport. He was merely offering him a ride to the airport as he also went there for regular checks. The plaintiff had a choice not to take that flight, but he chose to leave. The defendant is, therefore, not liable. The plaintiff’s case is dismissed with cost to the defendant, to be agreed or taxed.
   

Order accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Acting Chief Justice