Bureieta v Tirintetaake [2005] KICA 13; Land Appeal 06 of 2004 (8 August 2005)

IN THE KIRIBATI COURT OF APPEAL
LAND JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

Land Appeal No 6 of 2004

BETWEEN

TOURI BUREIETA
APPELLANT

AND

TAONABUARIKI TIRINTETAAKE
RESPONDENT

Before: Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Fisher JA

Counsel: Banuera Berina for appellant
Aomoro Amten for respondent

Date of Hearing: 3 August 2005
Date of Judgment: 8 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] This appeal concerns the ownership of a house plot. A Single Magistrate had made an order for the eviction of the respondent. The respondent appealed. The High Court, consisting of the Chief Justice and Magistrates Betero Kaitangare and Raratu Ieita, allowed the appeal and quashed the order for eviction. The appellant has appealed against that decision.

[2] At the start of the hearing in this Court, counsel advised that the parties had reached an agreement on the course they considered should be followed. We adjourned to enable counsel to record the terms of their proposal. We have now received the memorandum. The signed memorandum is on the Court file. For the purpose of this judgment we set it out:

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

WHEREAS the parties have realized that both the Appellant and the Respondent have a registered interest over the land Taberanaobike,

AND WHEREAS the High Court has allowed the Respondent to stay on the said land without taking into account the interest of the Appellant and

WHEREAS it has become apparent to the parties that the issues involved can better be tried out in fresh proceedings

NOW the parties, through their Counsel, hereby agree that:-

The order of the High Court ought to be varied to the extent that the order of eviction shall be set aside but that the matter shall be remitted to the Lands Court of Makin to determine:-

Whether or not the Appellant, having a registered interest in the land, can still apply for an eviction order against the Respondent considering the fact that the Respondent’s grandfather is also registered as owner of the land.

To the extent that there shall be an order directing a retrial the appeal shall be allowed.

Dated this 4^th day of August 2005

(Sgd) B. Berina (Sgd) A. Amten

Lawyer for Appellant Lawyer for Respondent

[3] We approve of the parties’ proposal. Accordingly we make the following orders:

1. The appeal is allowed.
   
2. The eviction order made in the Magistrates’ Court and affirmed on appeal to the High Court is set aside.
   
3. The matter is remitted to the Lands Court at Makin to determine:
   

Whether or not the Appellant, having a registered interest in the land, can still apply for an eviction order against the Respondent considering the fact that the Respondent’s grandfather is also registered as owner of the land.

Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Fisher JA