IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL 3 OF 2015

BETWEEN:	NEI WIITA TAEUN
					
					Appellant

AND:	ARITIONA ATANKAKIA 
Respondent

Date of Hearing:	29 January 2025
Date of Judgment:			3 February 2025

Appearances:			Ms. Taoing Taoaba for the Appellant
Mrs. Kiata Kabure Ariera for the Respondent (not present)

JUDGMENT

1.	Introduction

1.1.	This is an appeal against the Marakei magistrate court decision of CN 20/13 and 25/13 dated 18 October 2013.  The appeal was filed on the same day, 18 October 2013, and amended grounds of appeal were filed on 23 February 2015.

1.2.	The case at the lower court concerned defamation. The respondent, who was the applicant in the court below, was awarded damages in the amount of $200. The appellant was not happy with the decision hence her appeal.

2.	Grounds of Appeal

2.1 There are three grounds filed in support of the appeal as follows;

i.	The statement did not refer to the plaintiff but referred to the grandfather who died a long time ago,

ii.	The statement is not defamatory in nature and does not damage or injure the reputation of the plaintiff,

iii.	The plaintiff failed to prove the damages he suffered as a result of the defendant’s statement.

3.	Analysis

3.1.	The appellant argued that the judgment was erroneous as the statement in issue was not defamatory in nature, instead it was a typical statement used when there is land dispute.  There was a land dispute between the two parties, and the respondent said to another person that the appellant's grandfather did not have land on Tabontora, but their grandparent requested a plot from the respondent’s grandparents for them to build their brick house.

3.2.	To the appellant, the statement was shameful and untrue; therefore, she felt distressed and uncomfortable. The magistrate court agreed with the respondent and awarded her $200.

3.3.	The appellant referred this Court to the case of Irata v Boutu [1979] KILawRp 10; L.R.27 (15 February 1979), which states the principles in paragraph 11 as follows; 

“The first thing to decide is; were the words actually said by the respondent? The second thing is; if they were said were they defamatory? The third is; was special damage proved?”

3.4.	The appellant submitted that the second and third requirements were not satisfied. As mentioned above, to the appellant, the statement is not defamatory, it was used to ascertain the truth regarding the land plot occupied by the respondent. The appellant also submitted that the statement was not about the respondent but about her grandparents. I agree that the statement was not defamatory. It was made to explain the ownership of the land. Even the proceedings before the magistrate court were mainly about determining ownership. Parties and witnesses were talking about who owns the adjoining lands and so forth.
3.5.	I also accept the third ground. Nothing in the minutes shows that the respondent proved the damages she suffered. 

3.6.	Neither the respondent nor her Counsel attended the hearing. Therefore, there is no counter-argument.

4.	ORDER

4.1 In light of the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. Cost to the appellant, to be agreed or taxed.

Order accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice