IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL 5 OF 2021

BETWEEN:	
KIRIBATI PROVIDENT FUND
Appellant

AND:	
URUBATU KAUMAI
Respondent

Date of Hearing:			11 APRIL 2024
Date of Judgment:			22 APRIL 2024

Appearances:				Ms. Elsie Karakaua for the Appellant
                                                             Ms. Batitea Tekanito for the Respondent 

J U D G M E N T

Brief fact of the case;

1.	This is an appeal against the Leadership Commission's decision in case number 42/03FEB20, delivered on 17 November 2020. 

2.	In their decision, the Commission made recommendations that: a) the KPF Board is asked to make immediate arrangements to pay the overtime claim and other benefits to Urubatu Kaumai for the years 2002 to May 2006 and b) In calculating the amount payable, the KPF must apply the same basis used for Urubatu’s pay from June 2006 to March 2013. The KPF must also ensure to include other relevant allowances (like the shift and abnormal hours allowances as well as associated KPF payments for the same period) in the final calculation.

Grounds of Appeal;
3.	Two grounds of appeal filed as listed below;

a)	The Commission’s decision is ultra vires as the Respondent was not a leader pursuant to the Leaders’ Code of Conduct Act 2016.

b)	The Commission erred in law in failing to consider that the claims by the Respondent were statute barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 2004.

Analysis 
4.	The appellant, KPF, raised a concern regarding the applicability of the legislation on them, citing the definition of 'leader' in the interpretation section, which did not fit their situation. The respondent's counsel requested more time to prepare their reply to this argument, as it was unclear whether the 'respondent' mentioned in the ground referred to the appellant or their client. I refused the request for an adjournment. The respondent should have been prepared to argue on the possibility of either party being referred to as 'the respondent' in the ground one of the appeal. However, in the interest of fairness, I will not consider this ground. The second ground was sufficient for the appeal, which will be discussed below.

5.	The Appellant’s second ground is that the claims brought before the Leadership Commission were statute-barred as they involved the periods 2002 to 2006. Section 4 of the Limitation Act 2004 requires an action to be brought before the expiration of six years from the date the cause of action accrued. The cause of action accrued from 2002 to 2006, and the Respondent’s claim was brought before the Leadership Commission in 2020. The claim should have been brought before 2008 to 2012. 

6.	The Respondent argued that no affidavit shows evidence that the claim is outdated. I agree with the Appellant that there is no need for an affidavit as they appeal on the question of law. The Leadership Commission report specifically stated the period on which the claim was based, which was the overtime claim for the years 2002 to 2006. The ground is statute-barred and must fail.

Summary;

7.	The appeal is allowed.

8.	Cost to the Appellant, to be agreed or taxed.

Order accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
CHIEF JUSTICE