IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUVALU
AT FUNAFUTI
Civil Jurisdiction

Case no. 35/03

Between:

Tuvalu Telecommunications Corporation
Plaintiff

v

Talaa Mataika
Defendant

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

M Elisala for plaintiff
E Apinelu for defendant

Hearing: 18 May and 10 October 2005 and 24 April 2006
Judgment: 28 April 2006 

Judgment

The plaintiff brought a claim for $10,347.89, for an outstanding telephone account, covering calls made in the period March 2001 to September 2001, interest, court fee and costs. The defence admitted that the telephone had been in the defendant’s name and that it had been disconnected in September 2001 for failure to pay but he disputes the sum claimed. He also pleaded that he had paid a small sum in instalments towards the total which was admitted in the claim.

It is not necessary to set out the evidence in any detail save to say that I find that the plaintiff has clearly proved to the civil standard that the bill was run up on the defendant’s telephone for calls during the period February to August 2001 and the charges for September.

During much of that time, the defendant was abroad and many of the calls were made by his wife to him or her family. She had stayed on in Tuvalu and clearly missed him. The account was protected by a PIN and the wife’s evidence was that she was always conscientious about the use of that PIN. Although she was not sure that she had incurred such a large sum in calls, I am satisfied on the evidence that they were the result of her use of the telephone and that the defendant, as the account holder, is liable for the full sum claimed.

The case was delayed because it was apparent that the defendant would not be able to repay such a large sum. The Court asked that consideration be given by the plaintiff to some reduction which could allow the matter to be concluded by agreement. That decision has only just been made and the plaintiff has made the generous offer to waive 50% of the sum outstanding.

However, the Court is advised by counsel for the defendant that, despite the generosity of the offer, he still says he is unable to pay.

I can assist him no further. If that is his stance, I have no option but to give judgment to the plaintiff in the sum of $10,347.86 and court fee of $6.00. I trust that the plaintiff will maintain its offer to waive half of that sum but that is a matter for the parties. As a result of the time this case has taken, the defendant has had an opportunity, if had he so wished, to repay some of this debt. It appears he has not done so. He would be wise to reconsider his position.

I give judgment to the plaintiff in the sum of $10,347.89 and $6.00 court fee.

Dated: 28th day of April 2006

CHIEF JUSTICE