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

Johnny v Teitiaki [2024] KIHC 30; Civil Appeal 7 of 2018 (27 August 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL 7 OF 2018

BETWEEN: RUTIA JOHNNY
Appellant

AND: SESENGA TEITIAKI

Respondent

Date of Hearing: 7 AUGUST 2024
Date of Judgment: 27 AUGUST 2024

Appearances: Ms Henty Pine for the Applicant

Ms Raaman Teneaki for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Introduction:

1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Tabuaeran Magistrate Court in CN 61/2017, delivered on 14 November 2017. In that case, the Plaintiff, now the Appellant, sued the Defendant, now Respondent, for $2824 and $155 for the value of the goods belonging to her. Sesenga sent the goods to Rutia Johnny to sell, but the proceeds were never returned to her. The magistrate court ruled that Rutia must pay Sesenga $2979.
   

Appeal Grounds

2. There are three grounds filed to support the appeal as follows;
   
   • - The Magistrate failed to take into consideration relevant evidence consisting of Telmo payments made by the Appellant to the Respondent,
     
   • - The Magistrate took into consideration the evidence given by the Respondent, although such evidence did not have proof that such payments were made,
     
   • - In concluding the matter, the magistrate decided that the Appellant must pay the Respondent a certain amount, which could not be justified.
     

Submission and Analysis

3. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the court did not consider several Telmo payments, such as Telmo No. 0.023 for $1335.20, Telmo No. 159 for $502, and Telmo No. 031 in the amount of $302. The Appellant argued that the magistrate court should mention whether these payments were accounted for or rejected and for what reasons.
   
4. The Appellant also argued that her payments of $500, which she usually sent to the Respondent, were also acknowledged by the Respondent, but the magistrate court did not account for them. There was also an additional payment of $700 mentioned on page 10 of the court minutes, which parties both accepted. Although the purpose of the payment was disputed, the magistrate also did not consider such payment. The court did not consider the sitting allowance also sent to the respondent by the Appellant.
   
5. The Respondent, through Counsel, responded by saying that the payments were for something else but not for the cargo. They submitted that the Appellant made contradicting evidence regarding these payments. The Telmo payment was sent in 2015, but in the Appellant’s evidence, she said it was sent in 2016. The payments of $500 and $700 were never confirmed to be made for the cargo. To the Respondent, the court considered all these payments but were rejected.
   
6. The Appellant further claimed that the magistrate court took into account the Respondent's evidence that she had purchased her cargoes on three occasions for $670, $999, and $208. Adding these sums to her profit margin, she reached $2824. The Appellant submitted that the magistrate court accepted this testimony without seeing any documentary evidence from her to support the purchases.
   
7. The Appellant further argued that the total sum of $2979 ordered against her by the magistrate court in their decision was unjustified. The magistrate did not explain how they reached that amount. The Appellant referred this Court to the case of Lisala v iTaukei Lands Appels Tribunal [2019] FJHC 529, which states that the court’s failure to assess the evidence properly may result in its decision not being supported by evidence. In that case, the court explained why this may have happened if the court could not identify the evidence to support their finding. If this happened, the decision would be considered flawed in law.
   
8. The Respondent disagreed. She submitted that this was the amount she had claimed from the beginning, nothing more. Counsel argued that the Appellant's case authority, Lisala, is irrelevant because the magistrate based their decision on the evidence before them.
   
9. The Respondent quoted part of the judgment that concerns this particular argument as follows;

"The case involves a claim for the payment of $2029 from the defendant to the plaintiff. After reviewing testimonies from both parties, examining the cargo record of the plaintiff sent to the defendant, and considering the payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff, it has been concluded that Rutia Johnny must pay the claimed amount of $2979 to the plaintiff within three months."

10. After carefully reviewing the magistrate court’s decision, I agree with the Appellant that the magistrate Court did not explain how they reached $2979. It is evident from the decision quoted above that they only made a general statement that they had reviewed the testimonies, cargo records, and payments and came up with a total of $2979 to be paid.
    
11. I also agree that the decision did not mention the Telmo payments and other payments like $500 and $700 listed in the first grounds of the appeal. The magistrate court should consider these payments and state whether it accepts them or not and for what reason. For clarity, the court must state the reasons for its decision; otherwise, the judgment would be deemed unsupported. The case of Lisala illustrated this requirement.
    

Conclusion

12. In light of the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The case is returned to the magistrate court to reconsider its decision in light of the evidence before it. The magistrate court must review its minutes and consider every piece of evidence regarding the payments claimed by the Appellants, see whether or not they will accept them, and state the reasons. They must also consider evidence by the plaintiff regarding these payments.
    
13. If the magistrate court thinks assessing the evidence from the court minutes would be difficult, they can order a new trial.
    
14. The circumstances of the appeal warrant no order for cost. Each party is to bear their own expense.
    

Order accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice