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

Ubwaitoi v Attorney General [2010] KIHC 61; Civil Appeal 12 of 2009 (9 June 2010)

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

High Court Civil Appeal 12 of 2009

BETWEEN:

TAKARIA UBWAITOI
Appellant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL IRO KIRIBATI
ANZ Bank Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr Raweita Beniata
For the Respondent: Mr Aomoro Amten

Dates of Hearing: 9 June 2010

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

Appeal from the decision of the Single Magistrate dismissing the appellant’s claim against the Bank. The form of the proceedings is unusual in that the appellant originally sued the Bank for withholding a cheque in his favour from the DBK. I am told the cheque is not sufficient to cover the appellant’s indebtedness to the Bank but it would help.

In 2003 the appellant took out a loan from the Bank for $300 to be repaid at $50.00 per fortnight: the term of the loan was expressed to be "3 months approximately". All the appellant has ever repaid is $60.00. The amount owing by the appellant on the loan has grown constantly because of the establishment fee, interest, the monthly loan administration charge of $10.00 and the "Special Condition(s): a fee of $10 is to be debited to the account if repayment is not paid on the due date of each month". [I have taken these terms from a pro forma loan agreement which Mr Amten handed to the Court, Mr Beniata not opposing: the original loan agreement between the appellant and the Bank has been lost.]

Mr Beniata has complained on behalf of his client that the Bank did nothing to recover the loan. As a matter of law it was entitled to allow the loan and interest and charges to accumulate up to six years, the limitation period. These proceedings are within time. Morally I can sympathize with Mr Beniata’s argument – although the same argument may be turned against the appellant: he did nothing either. However as a matter of law the Bank had no obligation to do anything.

From a look at the statements the Bank has not added any charges not agreed. The Single Magistrate in a careful judgment after a long hearing dismissed the appellant’s claim. He was correct to do so. The appeal must be dismissed.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice