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

Meran v Falaile [2013] KIHC 6; High Court Civil Case 98 of 2007 (25 February 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 98 OF 2007
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

BETWEEN:

TAPETULU MERANG
PLAINTIFF

AND:

MANTEA FALAILE
DEFENDANT

FOR PLAINTIF: IOTITA KUARAWETE
FOR DEFENDANT:

Date of Hearing: 19 October 2012

ORDER

This is an application by the plaintiff against the defendant, Mrs Mantea Falaile for the enforcement of the Court's decision dated the 24 January 2008. The plaintiff applied for an order that the money paid into court pursuant to my previous Order dated 31st July 2012, be paid to him in satisfaction of this judgment.

Before I continue discussing this case, it is to be noted that at this hearing only the plaintiff and his Counsel were present. The defendant was never aware of this hearing. His former counsel, Mr Berina was only served, who did turned up to Court but requested withdrawal from Counsel as he was with no instruction. He submitted that he had lost contact of the defendant, that he had tried to contact her by email but there was no response. The defendant was said to be residing in New Zealand with her family. With the plaintiff's request, the hearing took place without the defendant.

For a brief background of this case, on the 23 January 2008 the High Court awarded $22,800 to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, Mantea Falaile. This judgment has not been satisfied until today. On the 31 July 2012 the plaintiff applied for the money to be paid to Mr Falaile Toromon, the husband of the defendant, by one Linda Uan as part of the purchase price of Mr Falaile's land that he sold to Ms Linda Uan, to be paid into court until final determination of his enforcement application. On a previous occasion, the plaintiff, in his effort to enforce this judgment, had also applied for the Court's order to have this land transferred to him. His application was refused as the land is owned by Mr Falaile Toromon, who is not a party to this case. In that judgment he was advised totake separate proceedings against Mr Falaile.
In this application there are two issues brought forward by Counsel for the plaintiff for determination which are as follows:

- Whether the purchase price of the land a matrimonial property or not,
- Whether the money borrowed by the judgment debtor a joint responsibility of both spouses or not.

The plaintiff submitted that the purchase price of the land belonging to the defendant's husband (Falaile Toromon) should be regarded as a matrimonial property and therefore should be paid to him in satisfaction of a judgment against the landowner's wife. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that eventhough the judgment was against the wife only the husband should be equally responsible as well.

However convincing this argument is, the defendant's husband must be heard as well. The plaintiff must take separate proceedings against the husband, Mr Falaile Toromon so he could have a chance to have a say in the matter, after all, the land is registered in his name only.
In light of the above, the plaintiff's application is dismissed.

Dated 25 February 2013.

...........................................
TETIRO M SEMILOTA
COMMISSIONER OF THE HIGH COURT