Shirly Mani (trading as Solkava Exporter) v Taitai [2025] KIHC 52; Miscellaneous Application 06573 of 2025 (11 August 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

MISC. APP 2025-06573 arising from
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 2025-01763

BETWEEN: Shirly Mani trading as Solkava Exporter

Plaintiff/Respondent

AND: Kobebe Taitai & Junior Tetaua Taitaitrading as Moonlight Company

Defendant/Applicant

Date of Hearing: 24 July 2025
Date of Judgment: 11 August 2025

Appearances: Mr Titabu Tabane for the Defendant/Applicant

Ms Abigail Fiualakwa for the Plaintiff/Respondent

R U L I N G

1. On February 28, 2025, a Writ of Summons numbered HCCC 2025-01763 was filed for the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the applicant, in this miscellaneous application. An appearance was entered for the Defendant on May 05, 2025. The Defendant failed to file their defence within the prescribed time.
   
2. The Chief Registrar signed the default judgment against the Defendant on June 19, 2025. On June 27, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment.
   
3. At the hearing, Counsel for the applicant/defendant submitted on two grounds to support the application to set aside the default judgment. The application was supported by an affidavit of one Tooma Maanana, a paralegal of Mr Tabane, the Defendant/Applicant’s lawyer.
   
4. The first ground, as stated in the application, is that the application for entering the default judgment was not served on the defendant/applicant. Counsel for the defendant pointed out that the defendant did not know of the hearing, which resulted in the default judgment. Counsel for the respondent correctly argued that the Rules did not require the application for default judgment to be served on the defendant and that a court hearing is not necessary for such applications. I agree. A judgment in default would be entered against the defendant if they did not file their defence within the prescribed period.
   
5. The defendant's counsel also argued that the defendant has a valid defence, which is that they needed more time for payment while waiting for their bank payment records to verify the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Counsel further argued that clause 4 of the parties' agreement requires the plaintiff to bring his complaints to the arbitrator first before initiating court proceedings. Because of this, the defendant claims to have suffered a loss of $2000 in damages for hiring a lawyer due to the breach of clause 4 (arbitration clause). This is stated as their counterclaim in their proposed defence.
   
6. I have reviewed the proposed defence and do not believe the defendant has a valid or arguable case. The defendant did not deny their default in payment or the amount claimed. The defence states that they needed more time to verify the claimed amount.
   

ORDER

7. In light of the above reasons, the application to set aside the default judgment is denied.
   
8. Cost to the plaintiff/respondent to be agreed or taxed.
   

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice