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

High Court Civil Case 61 of 2006

BETWEEN:

TEETA KAMORIKI (as Executor of the
Estate of Manoata Teeta)
Plaintiff

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL (iro Ministry of
Health and Medical Services)
Defendant

For the Plaintiff: Ms Joelle Grover
For the Defendant: Mr David Lambourne, Solicitor General

Date of Hearing: 16 July 2007

ADDENDUM

Having published the above reasons counsel confirmed that Manoata had two siblings. 

The Solicitor General relying on the decision he and his brothers made when he was sitting as a Commissioner of the Court (In the matter of the distribution of the monetary estate of Tenamo Mouata: ex parte Temaia Tiaoti Mackenzie, High Court Lands Review 2 of 2000, delivered 21st December 2000) submitted that pursuant to the provisions in the Native Lands Code and section 60 of the Magistrates Court Act the siblings are the sole beneficiaries of the estate. With respect to the Commissioner I am not confident this is so. I have found no words either in the Native Lands Ordinance or in the Code which indicate that money and goods should be regarded in the same way as land. Yet it having been decided that the whole of an estate whether it be land, goods or money should be administered in accordance with the Native Lands Code and that decision having stood now for six and a half years without challenge, it is sensible to let it stand. I accept the Solicitor General’s submission.

Accordingly the plaintiff and his wife are not beneficiaries and the amount I have assessed under the Act of 1934, $6,365.40, should not be deducted from the $10,000 I have awarded under Lord Campbell’s Act.

Two other questions remain for answer. First, whether the siblings have the benefit of the award for funeral expenses although the plaintiff paid them and second apportionment between the plaintiff and his wife of the $10,000. 

The second is easily answered as Ms Grover has said her client agrees to an equal apportionment between him and his wife.

As for the first, Counsel now agree, justifiably, that the funeral expenses were not borne by the estate but by the plaintiff personally. It is appropriate that he should be reimbursed for them.

The last point is interest. Counsel agree that it should be at the rate of 5% per annum and on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act component only. It is to run from the date the cause of action arose, 
27th August 2005.

Counsel are to prepare minutes of order.

Dated the 19th day of July 2007

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice