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

Tabukia v Baikia [2025] KIHC 109; Land Appeal 3 of 2021 (10 April 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
Land Appeal Jurisdiction
South Tarawa

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
BOUNTARAWA TABUKIA _______________________Appellant

AND:
KABOTERENGA BAIKIA ____________________________Respondent

Date of Hearing: 28 October 2024

Appearances: Mr. Banuera Berina for the Appellant

Mr. Birimaaka Tekanene for the Respondent

RULING ON COST

1. On June 30, 2023, this court called this matter on Abemama. Only Mr. Tekanene, representing the respondent, was present. He requested that the case be dismissed with costs. Following our deliberation, we declined the request for dismissal but allowed costs. We subsequently adjourned the case to South Tarawa to allow Mr. Berina and Mr. Tekanene to present their arguments concerning cost.
   
2. This is now the application for cost.
   
3. Mr. Berina argued that since the appeal has been adjourned to another date to give way to the review application, this appeal must consequently wait for the results of the said application. He claimed that Mr. Tekanene was aware of this. As such, he ought not to have travelled to Abemama, as the appeal would not be heard.
   
4. Mr. Tekanene contended that he is unaware of any court order that supports Mr. Berina's claim. He only travelled to Abemama after not receiving a reply from Mr. Berina to his email notifying him of his intended trip to Abemama. If Mr. Berina had responded, he would not have gone through the effort of traveling to Abemama.
   
5. Having heard counsels, we note that the issue at hand is whether there exists a court order or similar that would validate Mr. Berina's claims.
   
6. Upon reviewing the minutes of this court, it was noted that on November 17th, 2021, before Commissioner Uruaaba, both Mr. Berina and Mr. Tekanene were present. Mr. Berina stated his intention to withdraw the appeal in this matter, HCLA 3/21, and to proceed solely with HCLA 1/21. Additionally, he mentioned that he had submitted another civil review case on behalf of the appellant’s mother. Subsequently, the court adjourned the appeal to a later date to deliberate on the review application. This concluded the minutes.
   
7. There is no formal court order; nonetheless, it is evident that the court contemplated postponing the appeal to a later date in order to address the review application. A formal order would have been beneficial; however, the minutes indicate that this appeal cannot proceed until the review application has been evaluated. In essence, the court was deferring this appeal to a subsequent date to await the results of the review application. This is sufficient for the purposes of determining the issue at hand.
   
8. Consequently, we must concur with Mr. Berina that, even if this appeal is presented during the session of this court in Abemama, it cannot be considered until the review application has been addressed. It is important to note that Mr. Tekanene was present at the time and hence should and ought to have been aware of this.
   
9. However, it is important to emphasize, as a matter of good practice, that communication between legal counsels holds equal significance to any other responsibilities. Mr. Tekanene had sent an email to Mr. Berina notifying him of his plans to travel to Abemama for this appeal. Mr. Berina did not reply, and understandably, Mr. Tekanene proceeded to Abemama to avoid any unnecessary risks. Though Mr Berina responded, it was too late as Mr Tekanene by then was in Abemama. We felt sympathy for Mr. Tekanene. A prompt and straightforward response was all that was required; needless expenses could have been prevented. Consequently, we will grant Mr. Tekanene some costs. We consider a cost of $75 to be reasonable under the circumstances.
   
10. In exercising our discretion, cost is hereby granted in the sum of $75.00.
    

Order accordingly.

Dated this 10^th of April 2025.

HON. AOMORO T. AMTEN

JUDGE