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

Vinod Patel & Co Ltd v Inatio [2010] KIHC 133; High Court Civil Case 82 of 2010 (3 December 2010)

In the High Court of Kiribati
Civil Jurisdiction
Held at Betio
Republic of Kiribati]

High Court Civil Case 82 of 2010

Between:

Vinod Patel & Co Ltd
Plaintiff

And:

Temreke Tio Inatio
Defendant

For the Plaintiff: Ms Botika Maitinnara
For the Defendant: Mr Michael Takabwebwe

Date of Hearing : 22 November 2010

JUDGMENT

Action by the plaintiff company, a hardware merchant registered in Fiji, for the balance of moneys alleged to be owing to it by the defendant.

The late Mr Joe Teanako was the registered owner and principal of Mary's Kool, a construction and maintenance business, which had for some time been a customer of the plaintiff.

Mr Momlesh Bhuwan Chandra, Export Manager of the plaintiff, gave evidence. The defendant had previously had two tenders accepted, had bought its supplies from the plaintiff and paid in full for them. After completion of payment for the second tender the defendant put in a third tender for the KIR-EU Health Project and was successful. Again the defendant had its supplies of material from the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent invoices (Exhibit P2) for the materials etc. supplied. A statement of account is attached to the Exhibit. That was before the lamented death of Mr Teanako. Nei Temreke Miteti, Mr Teanako's widow, on several occasions, at this request had sent telegraphic transfers to the plaintiff in part payment.

Nei Temreke in evidence told the Court that she is no business woman and was never involved in the business except to help out, for example by making the TTs.

After her husband's death the Bank of Kiribati which has what was described as a mortgage over all the assets of the business, insisted that the business be registered in her name. The Certificate of Registration is Exhibit D9. Nevertheless Nei Temreke has not taken any part in the business and it is now no longer operating.

Despite Mr Takabwebwe's vigorous cross examination of him I found Momlesh a credible witness and his evidence reliable. There is none to the contrary. I accept Momlesh's evidence beyond the balance of probabilities. He summarised the claim:-

There is no direct evidence and no agreement by counsel as to whether these amounts are in Fijian or Australian dollars. The invoices and the statement of account are from a Fijian business. I therefore assume the amounts are in Fijian, not Australian dollars. I shall invite counsel to confirm this. If my assumption be correct it will be necessary to convert the balance owing from Fijian to Australian dollars before entering judgment.

Another point concerned me. The business was the business of the late Joe Teanako. Who is now responsible for it? Having heard Nei Temreke and seen the Certificate of Registration I am satisfied she is responsible and properly named as defendant.

Once the figures are settled I shall give judgment for the plaintiff.

Dated the 3rd day of December 2010

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice