Robuti v Tiite [2010] KICA 13; Land Appeal 01 of 2010 (18 August 2010)

IN THE KIRIBATI COURT OF APPEAL
LAND JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO

Land Appeal 1 of 2010

BETWEEN:

TITA ROBUTI REP BY TEBWE ANUATI
APPELLANT

AND:

IAKOBWA TIITE
RESPONDENT

Before: Tompkins JA
Fisher JA
Williams JA

Raweita Beniata for Appellant
Banuera Berina for Respondent

Date of Hearing: 16 August 2010
Date of Judgment: 18 August 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] In this matter the Chief Justice on 19 February 2010 allowed an appeal against a decision of a magistrate to set aside an earlier decision by a magistrate in case No. BD 3/96. The proceedings in BD 3/96 involved a boundary dispute – the appellant was there represented by her niece without any authority from the present appellant and without her knowledge. The present respondent was party to the boundary dispute. The more recent decision of a magistrate to set aside the earlier decision was based upon an alleged fraud having been perpetrated against the appellant by her niece.

[2] In support of the allegation of fraud the appellant before the High Court relied only on the fact that the proceedings in BD 3/96 were conducted in her name without her authority or knowledge. She made no complaint with respect to the conduct of the present respondent.

[3] In our opinion the Chief Justice was correct in his decision to uphold the original decision of the magistrate in BD 3/96 and to overturn the later decision based incorrectly upon a finding of fraud. An allegation of lack of authority per se does not amount to fraud.

[4] In the course of argument before the Court of Appeal the appellant made a submission which suggested that the niece had colluded with the respondent in BD 3/96. That submission was inconsistent with the manner in which the case had been conducted in the High Court. The additional element of collusion may have given rise to fraud but we refused to allow the appellant to develop this new case before us based upon these new particulars of alleged fraud.

[5] The appeal to the Court of Appeal will be dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent with respect to this appeal to be agreed or fixed by the Registrar.

Tompkins JA
Fisher JA
Williams JA