Tia v Katoa [2012] CKLC 2; App232.2010 (1 March 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(LAND DIVISION)
APPLICATION 232/10

IN THE MATTER of Section 450 of the Cook Islands Act 1915

AND

IN THE MATTER of AREARA & PUNANGAARIKI SECTION 127M, AVARUA

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application by VAINE A TIA to revoke the Succession Order made on the 14th September 1981 (MB 1/19) to Eteke

Applicant

AND

TEMARAMA KATOA (NEE RAURAA)

Respondent

Date: 1 March 2012

Counsel: Mrs Browne for the applicant
Mrs Carr for the respondent

DECISION OF THE COURT

Introduction

[1] On 19th October 2010 the Court annulled a succession order in respect to Eteke in the land known as Areara and Punangaariki Section 127M Avarua at Application Number 232/10.

[2] The annulment order was made on the basis that the "proper tupuna is Eteke Metua and not Eteke Rua". (Transcript 19/10/2010).

[3] The Court also stated that the effect of the annulment would mean that "there will have to be an application for Succession to Eteke Metua".

[4] Application (394/11) is that application. The applicant being Te Marama Rauraa represented by Mrs Carr, the respondent being Vaine A Tia represented by Mrs Browne.

Preliminary Issue

[5] After hearing the submissions of both counsel, Mrs Browne for the respondent submitted that it was premature for the Court to make orders on 394/11 because it had already made orders in respect to Eteke in applications 142/81, and this order remains in place in respect to Eteke. Justice Savage in his order of 19th October 2010 only annulled applications 146/81 and 147/81 of 14th September 1981.

[6] Mrs Carr does not accept this proposition and maintains that her application is not dealing with the earlier orders and it is only the 14th September 1981 that is being challenged.

[7] She also says in her submission that if her application is successful then her clients would have the same entitlement to the successors to Eteke in Minute 27/262 in the Succession order of 4th April 1967.

Discussion on the Preliminary Issue

[8] From these submissions received, I agree with Mrs Browne that hearing this application is premature.

[9] The succession orders in Application 142/81 remain extant the Court. As a result the annulment order made by Judge Savage has not affected that succession order.

[10] To enable accuracy and consistency of the succession orders in respect to Eteke it is my view that it is appropriate for the Court to invite the applicant to file an application to consider the correctness of all succession orders made in respect to Eteke.

[11] This will avoid a piecemeal consideration of the succession orders which is a process that should be encouraged by this Court.

[12] As a result the present application 394/11 is adjourned pending the filing of the appropriate application. I also direct the registrar to waive the filing fee in the interests of correcting and or improving the Court title records.

Justice W Isaac

Editorial Note: Derived from the Court’s electronic records and believed to be correct and final.