Taun v Tiare [2006] KICA 1; Land Appeal 01 of 2006 (26 July 2006)

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

Land Appeal 1 of 2006

BETWEEN:

IOANE TAUN AND OTHERS
Appellants

AND:

MEREUE TIARE AND OTHERS
Respondents

Before: Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Fisher JA

Counsel for Appellants: In Person
Counsel for Respondents: Banuera Berina

Date of Hearing: 22 July 2006
Date of Judgment: 26 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1. When this case was called at the commencement of the sittings, Mr Taun, appearing in person for himself and the other appellants, asked for an adjournment to the sittings next year, to allow them time to raise the money needed to meet the requirements of rule 17 (1) (b) and (c) of the Court of Appeal Rules as to costs and security for costs, none of which has been paid in time.

2. The appeal is against the High Court’s refusal of an application for certiorari in order to quash the registration of the owner of land in Biketawa. The appellants claim that their ancestor was owner of the land before the present registered owner. They do not know how the latter got there, and seek to have her removed. They can achieve that only by proving fraud. They allege forgery. To judge by the material before the High Court, proof of that would seem difficult in the extreme. Indeed, as the Chief Justice said, "there is no hint of fraud." The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the registration challenged was made over 50 years ago.

3. The appellants went to the Magistrates’ Court in 2004 to pursue their claim. They failed. They then applied for certiorari in the hope of having the registration re-opened. The High Court dismissed the application on the basis that there is no hint of fraud.

4. Section 17 (2) of the Rules requires this Court to dismiss an appeal where, as here, the requirements as to costs and security have not been complied with. There is of course a discretion, but we decline to exercise it in this case as the appeal patently has no merit. It is a hopeless appeal.

5. We therefore refused the application for an adjournment, and now formally dismiss the appeal.

Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Fisher JA