IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL 8 OF 2017

BETWEEN:	TEIBI ARIKINTARAWA
					Appellant

AND:		TERAINA ISLAND COUNCIL 
Respondent

Date of Hearing:			2 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 Teraina Magistrate Court in CN 66/2016, delivered on 11 October 2016. This case concerned the plaintiff, now appellant, against the Teraina Island Council for negligence and unfair treatment when they failed to provide safe and appropriate housing. The plaintiff claimed damages of $3300 for his damaged motorbike, $4395 for discomfort, and other court expenses. 

2.	The Teraina Magistrate Court dismissed the claim for the following reasons;

-	The discomfort he felt with his family was caused by his own doing when he decided to move to another house, which later collapsed.

-	The Teraina Island Council was concerned about their situation, so they decided to move him and his family to the Island Council’s motel while their house was renovated, but he refused.

-	The principal also told him to move to the houses near the sea, but he refused as he feared that his children might drown.

Ground of Appeal

3.	The Appellant filed one ground in support of the appeal as follows;

-	The Magistrate Court failed to consider the evidence produced by the appellant and his witnesses, indicating that the respondent failed to provide care and proper consideration to address the needs of the appellant and his family in a timely manner.
-	
Submission and Analysis

4.	The Appellant referred this Court to the case of Lisala v iTaukei Lands Appeals 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.

5.	The Appellant argued that the magistrate court failed to consider his and his wife’s evidence regarding the Council's failure to provide decent accommodation in a timely manner. Weeks after the mayor told them they would fix their house, no maintenance work was done. They spent the whole year in the same condition, moving from house to house to get a comfortable and decent home. 

6.	The Respondent was in charge of providing decent housing to the teachers on Teraina, but they had failed to do so. I read the court’s minutes, and there was nothing in them to show that the Respondent denied being responsible for housing the teachers.  

7.	The Respondent argued that the decision was based on the evidence presented before the court. The court accepted the evidence that the Appellant caused his misfortune when he moved to the other house, and as a result, his motorbike was damaged when the roof fell on it. 

8.	The Appellant did not dispute that he moved to other houses but stated that he moved because he wanted to find a better house for his family. The house he moved to was in better condition than the one he previously stayed in.  The first house, given to them when they arrived, had holes in the walls. Its roof was patched up with pieces of iron roofing, rice bags, cardboard boxes, and old lavalava. They moved from house to house to find comfort, but all the houses were in the same bad condition. At one time, their year-old child fell into one of the holes of the raised house and landed on his head. Their belongings got soaked from the rain leaking through the holes. They even stayed at Santa Teretia maneaba (meeting place) while they waited for the maintenance of their house. Then they asked the principal if they could move to one house with a better ‘buia n amwarake’ (raised dining place), the only part of that house in good condition. One night, the roof of the house they were staying at collapsed and fell on their motorbike and damaged it. 

9.	The Respondent also submitted that the magistrate court also accepted the evidence that the Appellant did not move to the Respondent’s motel when it was offered to him. The Appellant submitted before this Court that this information was never conveyed to him; he only knew about it in court when the Respondent raised it. I looked at the court’s minutes and agreed that there was evidence that the principal did not convey to the Appellant the Council’s offer to the Appellant and family to stay at the motel. 

10.	The Appellant did not dispute that the Council held a meeting to consider his housing problem but denied that this assisted his problem as the maintenance work was not done. 

Order

11.	In light of the above, I agree with the Appellant that the Respondent had been negligent in providing proper and decent housing to the Appellant, which resulted in damage to his motorbike and discomfort to the Appellant and his family.

12.	The appeal is allowed, cost to the Appellant to be agreed or taxed.

13.	The case is returned to the magistrate court to hear parties on the Appellant’s claim for damages. 

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice