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

Temari v Punjas Kiribati Ltd [2025] KIHC 85; Civil Case 15 of 2020 (18 November 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT KIRITIMATI ISLAND

Civil Case No. 15 of 2020

Between:

Mikarite Temari Plaintiff

And:

Punjas Kiribati Limited Defendant

Counsel: No appearance for the Plaintiff

Ms. Botika M McDermott for the Defendant

RULING

1. This is an application by the defendant under Order 62 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1964 (Western Pacific) for the matter to be struck out for want of prosecution.
2. The plaintiff initiated this proceeding by filing a summons for directions in July 2024. Since that time, no further step has been taken to advance the matter. More than one year has elapsed without any procedural activity or application for directions under Order 64 Rule 9.
3. The defendant now applies to strike out the action pursuant to Order 62 Rule 1, which provides that where no step has been taken in a cause or matter for one year and no notice to proceed has been filed, the Registrar shall take out a summons, returnable in one month, calling on the parties to show cause why the action should not be struck out.
4. The Court notes that this procedural requirement has not been complied with. Specifically, the Registrar has not issued the summons contemplated by Order 62 Rule 1, and no such summons has been served on the plaintiff. This step is not merely formal; it is intended to ensure procedural fairness by giving the plaintiff an opportunity to explain the delay before any adverse order is made.
5. Despite this omission, the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has failed to prosecute the matter with due diligence. The prolonged inaction, extending well beyond the one-year threshold, justifies judicial intervention. In the exercise of its discretion, and in reliance on the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, the Court is prepared to strike out the action.
6. The defendant has also sought an order for costs. However, the Court is not satisfied that the plaintiff was personally served with notice of today’s hearing or with any summons to show cause. While the plaintiff’s counsel may have had knowledge of the hearing, there is no affidavit or proof of service establishing that the plaintiff himself was notified in accordance with the Rules.
7. In the circumstances, the Court considers it unjust to award costs against the plaintiff. The absence of proper service raises concerns of procedural fairness, particularly where the order sought is adverse and final in nature.
8. Nonetheless, as a compromise, the Court will strike out the matter for want of prosecution under Order 62, notwithstanding the procedural irregularity regarding the summons. However, the defendant’s application for costs is refused.
9. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court notes that under the Rules, the plaintiff retains the right to apply to reopen the matter within six months of the date of this order should sufficient cause be shown.

ORDERS:

• The plaintiff’s action is struck out pursuant to Order 62 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1964 (Western Pacific).
• The defendant’s application for costs is dismissed.
• The plaintiff may apply to reopen the matter within six months of the date of this order.

DATED at Ronton, this 18^th day of November 2025.

__________________________
HON. AOMORO T. AMTEN
Judge of the High Court