Langley v Langley [2025] KIHC 80; Civil Case 3A of 2017 (24 December 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

CIVIL JURISDICTION

High Court Civil Case 3A of 2017

Between: Martin Langley and Others

Applicant

AND: Tominiko Teen Langley iro Late Teen Langley and Others Respondent

Date of hearing: 4 September 2025
Date of judgment: 24 December 2025

Appearances: Ms Botika Maitinnara for the Plaintiff

Ms Taoing Taoaba for the Defendant

R U L I N G- striking out

1. The case was filed in February 2017. The application concerns Orders 61, Rules 2 and 3, of the High Court Civil Procedure Code. The application sought the Court’s leave to extend time to apply for an order of certiorari, and for a further order granting them leave to apply for an order of certiorari in respect of the decision CN 98/05 given on 22/04/05.
   
2. On July 27, 2018, the application for an extension of time was granted. From February 2023 until June 10, 2024, the case was called several times to list the substantive application for hearing, but it was adjourned at the request of the two parties. At the last PTC on June 10, 2024, neither party appeared, so the matter was left idle awaiting the plaintiff's application for a PTC. None was forthcoming until August 21 this year, when the matter was called on the initiative of the Registrar pursuant to Order 62, Rule 1 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, to have it listed for striking out for want of prosecution.
   
3. On August 21, the case was listed before this Court to consider striking out. The applicant's counsel was out of the country and requested an adjournment. The case was adjourned to September 4, at which both parties appeared. Counsel for the applicant asked that the matter be listed for hearing, as an extension of time had been granted. Counsel for the Respondent informed this Court that her client had passed away.
   
4. South Pacific Marketing (NZ) Ltd v Maile [1987] SBHC 12; SILR 81 (9 November 1987) is where the Solomon Islands court states that the delay inherently entails the risk of prejudice, as the witness may pass away or become unavailable, and memories may fade, thus complicating the pursuit of a just decision.
   
5. Having considered both arguments, I am not convinced that the case should be struck out. Although the plaintiff did not provide any reasons for the delay, the respondent did not present evidence to this court demonstrating that the delay would pose a substantial risk of prejudice due to fading memories or the unavailability of witnesses, among other factors.
   

Outcome

6. For the reasons stated above, this case is allowed to continue.
   
7. To avoid further delays, this Court orders the applicant to set the hearing date as soon as possible through the PTC.
   
8. The children of Tominiko Teen Langley, or one of his siblings from Late Teen Langley, who were known as respondents, together with him in this case, must be appointed to represent them as respondents in this lawsuit.
   

Order Accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA

Chief Justice