Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Kiribati

Matitiba v Mwanrunga Primary School Committee [2002] KIHC 5; Civil Appeal 29 of 1996 (7 June 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT NIKUNAU
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Appeal 29 of 1996

Between:

MORITI MATITIBA
Appellant

And:

SCHOOL COMMITTEE
MWANRUNGA PRIMARY SCHOOL
Respondent

For the Appellant: Ms Emma Hibling
For the Respondent: Mr Tion Nabau

Date of Hearing: 7 June 2002

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

In or before 1992, as a result of a dispute between the Appellant, now deceased, and the Respondent, the Accused's son was excluded from the school.

The appellant took proceedings in the Magistrates' Court for damages for preventing the child from going to the school. He failed and his appeal to the High Court was dismissed (HCCA 30/92 and HCCA 32/92). I have seen the Judgment of Lussick CJ. His Honour identified five omissions in the Magistrates' Court and sent the case back for hearing again. Two or three of the omissions were not repeated on the retrial but at least two others – not ensuring that the school committee was a legal entity and not enquiring into the standing of the person representing the school – were repeated. One point which occurs to me – but which I do not decide - is whether a parent has standing to sue for the failure of a school to accept a child as a pupil.

This appeal is an appeal from the retrial in which the appellant again failed. He asks that the matter be sent back for an assessment of damages for failure to give the child an education.

There comes a time when legal proceedings become a futility: the court is not able to give a proper remedy. In this case the time has been passed. The appeal is dead. The child is grown up (Ms Hibling says he has no job: whether that is a result of lack of education is not known). There is no point in persisting with the matter.

The appeal is dismissed.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
CHIEF JUSTICE