Tokamatang v Toanriki [2025] KIHC 56; Civil Appeal 01093 of 2025 (1 September 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL 2025-01093

BETWEEN: KIABAUA TOKAMATANG
Appellant

AND: TEMAABU TOANRIKI
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 28 August 2025
Date of Judgment: 1 September 2025

Appearances: Ms Taoing Taoaba for the Appellant

No appearance for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The Appeal

1. This appeal is against the decision of the magistrate court in CN 2024-04956 dated December 17, 2024. In that case, the appellant claimed the payment of the debt owed by the respondent. The respondent did not appear in court, but the magistrate court dismissed the claim.
   
2. The appellant appealed on the following ground;
   
   • - The Single Magistrate failed to take into account the fact that during the PTC, all documents were given to the court; hence, it was not our fault that they are missing.
     
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the court delivered its judgment without considering the supporting documents submitted to support their claim of debt against the respondent. Counsel submits that all their supporting documents, such as the certificate for their business registration name, the appellant’s business licence, and a record showing the amount of debt owed by the respondent to the appellant, were submitted to the court clerk at the Pre-Trial conference.
   
4. The appellant argues that at the hearing, the magistrate asked about these documents and told the appellant to bring them to the next hearing date. The appellant appeared in court on that day with copies of the supporting documents, but the judgment had already been entered.
   
5. The appellant further argues that the court erred in refusing to give judgment for him when there was enough evidence to support his claim against the respondent.
   
6. The respondent did not attend this appeal hearing, although served.
   
7. After reviewing the magistrate’s court minutes dated 18 November 2024 and the judgment dated 17 December 2024, I find that the magistrate court dismissed the case because there was no supporting evidence submitted during the hearing. I also find that the appellant, when asked about his supporting documents, did not mention that the documents had been given to the clerk during the PTC. The minutes show that the appellant responded to the court by stating he had forgotten to bring the copies of his business license, the business records to show the amount owed, and the court fee to the hearing. The court then mentioned that it would issue its judgment on Friday, and the judgment was issued on November 22, 2024. There is no indication in the minutes that the hearing was adjourned to another date to allow the appellant to provide the necessary documents.
   
8. The magistrate stated in his judgment that the supporting documents were submitted to the court after the hearing but before the court delivered its judgment. Still, these documents were not accepted by the magistrate court as they were not properly tendered at the hearing.
   
9. The PTC minutes also did not show that the appellant submitted his supporting documents to the clerk at that time.
   
10. I find no error by the magistrate court in reaching its decision.
    

Outcome

11. The appeal is dismissed.
    
12. The ruling of the Magistrates Court in CN 2024-04956 delivered on 17 December 2024 is upheld;
    

Order accordingly

THE HON. TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice