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

Attorney General iro Nonouti Island Council v Io [2023] KIHC 23; Civil Appeal 6 of 2022 (6 September 2023)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL 6 OF 2022

BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL IRO NONOUTI ISLAND COUNCIL
Appellant

AND:
KABOKIA IO
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 30 AUGUST 2023
Date of Judgment: 6 SEPTEMBER 2023

Appearances: Ms. Kabwea Intintaake for the Appellant
Ms. Eweata Maata for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Brief fact of the case;

1. This is an appeal against the magistrate court decision in CN 7/20, delivered on 16 December 2021.
   
2. In CN 7/20, the Respondent was awarded damages at $8000 for a defamation claim against the Nonouti Island Council clerk.
   

Extension of Time;

3. The appeal was filed late, but the application to appeal out of time was granted on 18 August 2023. I told the parties that the delay was not substantial as it was only one month and a week due to the COVID-19 outbreak. The other reason is to allow this court to properly hear parties on the issues of law brought forward as grounds for appeal. These grounds are listed below.
   

Grounds of Appeal;

4. The Appellant filed two grounds of appeal as listed below;
   
   1. The decision made against the appellant to pay the sum of $8000 as damages is manifestly excessive and
   2. The learned magistrate failed to consider and take into account precedents cases presented before them that are of the same nature with the matter in dispute.
      

Analysis

5. There are two case authorities referred to by the Appellant to show the standard amount awarded as damages for defamatory cases in Kiribati.
   
6. Mariano v Iotebwa [2001] KIHC Civil Appeal 09 of 2000, damages were awarded for $3000 but was reduced to $200 on appeal. The High Court stated that damages for defamation cases were not like a fine, it was about finding a reasonable amount to compensate the Respondent for the defamation.
   
7. Uan v Linda and Biribo [2006] KIHC 9, damages were awarded at $750 after proving the defendant's liability for defamation.
   
8. Counsel for the respondent already submitted at the hearing of the application for an extension of time the case of Ah Him and Others v Brunt and Mauala [2014] WSCA 2 to support that the amount awarded is not excessive. In that case, the court awarded damages for $1000 to each of the four appellants or $4000 in total. The judges of the Court of Appeal mentioned in paragraph 73 of their judgment that they were not referred to any Samoan authority or decisions on the quantum of the damages.
   
9. Given the above precedents, I agree with the appellant. An award of $8000 is manifestly excessive. The magistrate court did not consider these precedent cases in their decision. They only mentioned that the award was for injury to the feelings and reputation.
   
10. The latest case authority is a case from 2006, Uan v Linda and Biribo, almost seventeen years ago, awarded $750 for a libel case, but the court also mentioned that if the defamation is repeated in the future, damages are likely to be very much higher. I agree that circumstances change over time, which warrants an increase in damages for defamation cases in Kiribati.
    
11. The appellant also raises that given their financial problems, they could not afford to pay $8000. I must say that the economic issues of the parties do not form part of the assessment in defamation cases; hence, this is irrelevant.
    
12. Summary;
    
13. The appeal against the quantum is allowed for all the reasons stated above.
    
14. The decision of the Nonouti magistrate court in CN 7/20 is quashed.
    
15. Damages awarded are reduced to $3000.
    

Order accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Acting Chief Justice