Aribeta Obetaia (trading as KAK's Wheel Services) v Kiribati Ports Authority [2025] KIHC 20; Civil Case 21 of 2022 (5 May 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 21 of 2022

BETWEEN: ARIBETA OBETAIA t/a KAK’s WHEEL SERVICES

Plaintiff

AND: KIRIBATI PORTS AUTHORITY

Defendant

Date of Hearing: 13 March, 20-27 March & 23 April (w/subs)
Date of Judgment: 5 May 2025

Appearances: Mrs. Kiata Kabure Ariera for the Plaintiff
Ms. Elsie Karakaua for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The plaintiff was a car dealer trading in the name of KAK’s Wheels Services. She imported reconditioned cars from a supplier in Japan known as I-Corporation.
   
2. Sometime in November 2021, the plaintiff ordered five units in a 40” cube container. The plaintiff experienced difficulty releasing the vehicles due to a change in the consignee’s name. The storage fee accumulated while she tried to resolve this issue with the supplier. After sixty-five days of storage, the defendant auctioned four vehicles. They gave the other vehicle to another person as a replacement for his car since the defendant had lost the key. The defendant received $36,550 in auction proceeds from the four cars. The defendant submits that they would have received $9,050 for the other car had it been auctioned. The defendant’s total expenses incurred for the storage and auction of the vehicles were $46,999.80, exceeding $45,600, the amount it would have received had all five vehicles been auctioned.
   
3. By writ of summons filed on 27 June 2022, the plaintiff sues the defendant for the price of five units of used vehicles that she paid to the supplier in the amount of USD $14,500, as well as loss of income totaling AUD $10,000, general damages, emotional distress, interest, and the costs of the action.
   

Issues

4. The plaintiff submits the issues as follows;
   • - Whether or not the plaintiff was the consignee of the five vehicles,
   • - Whether or not the defendant owes a duty to auction these five vehicles within a reasonable time?
   • - Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to any surplus of auction proceeds?
     

Submission and Analysis

5. At the trial, the plaintiff’s case is that the defendant unreasonably accumulated storage charges without any valid reason for detaining them and failed to auction them after twenty-one days. Section 24(1) of the Kiribati Ports Act states as follows:

“Powers to sell or dispose of goods

24(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if any goods which have been placed in or on premises of the Authority are not removed therefrom within a period of twenty -one days from the time when they were so placed, the Authority may, at the expiration of that period, sell by public auction or dispose of all or any of such goods as it may think fit;

Provided that...

(3) Before effecting a sale under this section, the Authority shall give at least three days’ notice thereof by advertisement at public places or on the radio...

(4) The proceeds of any sale under this section shall be applied by the Authority in the following order:

(a) first, in payment of any duty owing to the Government;

(b) secondly, in payment of the expenses of the sale;

© thirdly, in payment of all charges and expenses due to the Authority under the provisions of this Act in respect of the goods; and

(d) fourthly, in payment of freight or other claims or liens of which notice has been given under the provisions of any written law...”

6. The defendant submits that the plaintiff failed to specifically plead in her statement of claim the issue of unreasonable delay of the auction of the five vehicles. Order 22 Rule 3 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules provides the need for the claim to be specified. This relevant rule is stated below;
   

ORDER 22

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Relief to be specifically stated.

R.S.C O20, r6

3. Every statement of claim shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims, either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief, which may always be given, as the Court may think just, to the same extent as if it has been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any counterclaim made, or relief claimed by the defendant, in his defence.

7. The defendant refers to the case of Ports Authority of Fiji v C & TMarketing Ltd (No.2) [2001] FijiLawRp 89 to show that where general relief is sought, it is limited by the facts alleged and the relief specifically sought.
   
8. The defendant submits that nothing in the statement of claim shows that the claim concerns the defendant's unreasonable delay of the auction. In the plaintiff’s relief, the following are sought;
   
   • - cost of 5 units used vehicles including freight and vanning in the sum of USD$ 14,500
   • - loss of income in the sum of AUD$ 10,000
   • - emotional distress
   • - interests
   • - general damages
   • - cost of the action
     
9. At the hearing, the plaintiff claims the following;
   • - $9382.96, the estimated amount that would have been received had the vehicle been auctioned instead of used as a replacement for the defendant customer’s vehicle, whose key was lost by the defendant.
   • - $29,760.00, the amount charged against the plaintiff for storage of the vehicles,
   • - General damages and the cost of the action.
     
10. It is clear that the plaintiff’s claim changed at the trial. The statement of claim filed did not specify the relief for the unreasonable delay of the auction of the vehicles. The plaintiff’s claim for the surplus of the auction proceeds was generally mentioned in the claim without specifying it as a claim for the unreasonable delay of the auction or the claim for $9,382.96, the amount it would have been received had the other car also been auctioned.
    
11. Paragraph 27 of the statement of claim specifies that the plaintiff claims reimbursement for the price and freight of the five vehicles. These are summarised as relief as item 1, in the amount of USD$14,500, and item 3 for $10,000. Paragraph 28 specifies that the plaintiff is also entitled to the surplus of the auction proceeds, but this was not specified, nor was it listed in the relief claimed. See paragraphs 8 and 9 above.
    
12. As I mentioned, the plaintiff changed her claim at the trial. It became apparent that she accepted the auction of the five vehicles and no longer wanted to claim the FOB of the five vehicles for USD 14,500 and the loss of profit of AUD $ 10,000. Instead, she sought to claim the surplus of the proceeds and the $9382.96, the amount it would have been received had the other vehicle been auctioned instead of being given away as a replacement for the car whose key was lost by the defendant.
    
13. The defendant did not dispute the plaintiff’s claim for $9382.96 had the other car also been auctioned. This amount could not be counted as a surplus from the auction proceeds, as the expenses incurred by the defendant for storage, customs charges, and advertisement for the auction exceeded the amount received from the auction, even with the addition of $9832.96. The defendant incurred expenses of $46,999.80 and received only $36,550 from the auction, plus $9382.96, the value of the other car not auctioned, totaling $45,932.96. This amount would still not cover the outstanding debt of $46,999.80.
    
14. Having considered the evidence with the claim in the writ of summons/statement of claim as laid out above, I am of the view that it discloses no reasonable cause of action regarding the issue of whether the delay in auctioning the vehicles was unreasonable therefore the plaintiff’s claim in this regard must be disregarded.
    
15. Regarding whether the plaintiff was the consignee of the five vehicles, the defendant argues that this issue alone does not give rise to a cause of action. The defendant submits that the plaintiff fails to explain how this issue relates to her claim. According to the defendant, this was only a matter between the plaintiff and her supplier; therefore, it is irrelevant. I accept this argument. There was evidence that the consignee’s name was changed at one point in time from the plaintiff to another person, and while the plaintiff tried to sort this out with her supplier, the storage of the vehicles accumulated and she failed to pay; therefore, the defendant did not release the vehicles to her, leading to the auction.
    
16. The defendant submits, and I agree, that since the issues raised by the plaintiff are irrelevant and have shown no reasonable cause of action, the claim against the defendant must be struck out pursuant to Order 27 Rule 4 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, which states as follows;
    

Striking out pleading where no reasonable cause of action disclosed

R.S.C O.25,r.4

4. The Court may order any pleading to be struck out on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer, and in any such case of the action or defence being known by the pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, the Court may order the action, to be stayed or dismissed, or judgment to be entered accordingly, as may be just.

Summary

17. The first issue, whether or not the plaintiff was the consignee of the five vehicles, is irrelevant to their claim; therefore, this could not amount to a proper cause of action.
    
18. The second issue, whether or not the defendant owes a duty to auction these five vehicles within a reasonable time, was not specifically pleaded in the claim; therefore, it could not be considered.
    
19. The third issue, regarding whether the plaintiff is entitled to any surplus from the auction proceeds, is explained in paragraph 13 above; there was no surplus since the issue about the delay in the auction is disregarded.
    
20. The defendant is entitled to costs, to be agreed or taxed.
    

Order accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice