Tabuariki v Touaa [1997] KICA 28; Land Appeal 11 of 1996 (25 March 1997)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION

LAND APPEAL NO. 11 OF 1996

BETWEEN

TEKEANG TABUARIKI
TEKANUEA TOUA.A
Appellants

AND

AROMAITABU TOUAA
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 21 March 1997
Delivery of Judgment: 25 March 1997

Mr. D Lambourne for Respondent

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Gibbs V.P, Connolly and Ryan JJ.A)

The appellants in this case are the parents of a son Touaa who is now deceased. Touaa had a relationship with a woman named Berota. Berota was delivered of a child Aromaitabu the respondent. At first the appellants accepted that Aromaitabu was the child of Touaa. Subsequently however Aromaitabu went to live with Kauaai who claimed to be the father of Aromaitabu. The present case arises out of a finding by the magistrates which was confirmed by the High Court that Aromaitabu was the child of Touaa and that the estates of Touaa were therefore hers. The appellants do not believe that Aromaitabu was the child of Touaa and therefore think that it is not just that she should have a share of his estate. We can quite understand the feelings of the appellants. However it appears that Touaa acknowledged in writing that he was the father of Aromaitabu and did so for the purpose, of having his paternity recognised by the court. It is true that the records of that earlier proceedings have been destroyed but there was clear evidence as to what occurred. In view of this formal recognition by Touaa and in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it was clearly open to the magistrates’ court in this case to accept that Aromaitabu was the child of Touaa It is not possible for us to overturn the finding of the magistrates which was confirmed by the High Court and is based on this evidence. We dismiss the appeal. In this case the appellants have lodged in appeal to this court and have brought the matter here and Aromaitabu responded to all announcement made over the radio by the court that she should be here. In those circumstances we feel that we have no choice but to order appellants to pay the cost of her passage which is $132. It may be that since the appellants say that they have no means, the parties may wish to resolve this matter themselves but our order will have to be as I have stated.

SIGNED BY
Gibbs V.P, Connolly and Ryan JJ.A