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

Civil Appeal 8 of 2003

Between:

Ramwane Kamwa
Appellant

And:

Onotoa Island Council
Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr Aomoro Amten
For the Respondent: Ms Taoing Taoaba

Date of Hearing: 22 January 2004

Judgment

The appellant claimed over $12,000 from the Respondent Council. The claim was brought in the Onotoa Magistrates' Court. The appellant lost and his claim was dismissed. He now appeals against the decision on the ground that the Onotoa magistrates had no jurisdiction to hear the case because he was claiming more than $3,000.00.

Mr Amten referred me to Schedule 1 of the Magistrates' Court Ordinance:

1.	Each magistrates' court shall have jurisdiction to entertain, hear, try, determine and otherwise deal with –

(b)	any personal suit, whether arising from contract or from tort, or both, ------ where the value of the property debt or damage claimed (whether as a balance or account or otherwise) is under $3,000.

Contrary to my previous assumption that, while a claim in a Magistrates' Court could be for any amount, the Court could give a judgment only for an amount under $3,000, the Schedule provides that jurisdiction depends on "the value of the property debt or damaged claimed".

The appellant claimed over $12,000, so the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Ms Taoaba for the respondent conceded the appeal. Otherwise I would have hesitated to allow the appellant to take advantage of his own mistake, beginning proceedings in the wrong court. However as the concession was made justice will be done by non-suiting the appellant. This will allow him to take fresh proceedings in the High Court, if so advised (I pointed out to Mr Amten that his client lost on the facts before the Magistrates).

The respondent conceding, appeal allowed: order of the magistrates dismissing the claim quashed. In lieu thereof Order that the plaintiff (appellant before this Court) be non-suited.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice