PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Kiribati

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Kiribati >> 1996 >> [1996] KIHC 44

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Ioane v Iakobo [1996] KIHC 44; HCLA 099.91 (23 July 1996)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
HELD AT MARAKEI
(BEFORE THE HON R LUSSICK C.J.)


HCLA 99/91


BETWEEN:


TIAON IOANE
Appellant


AND:


TEANG IAKOBO
Respondent


Appellant in person
Mr D Lambourne for the Respondent


JUDGMENT


The appellant appeals a decision of the Land Magistrates' Court in case no. 46/91 ordering him to move his house one yard to the north, away from the respondent's boundary.


The appellant's grounds of appeal as filed are as follows:


(1) The court is biased in that it did not consider my witness to support my case. They seemed to be considering plaintiff side in selecting their witness.


(2) I claimed that I build my houses on my land or mark".


It is not in dispute that the houses are of local construction and can be moved without much difficulty.


The lower court heard the sworn evidence of both parties then went to the scene. There they called further evidence from one of the villagers, but he does not appear to have been of much help according to the record.


The court erected a boundary stone to indicate the boundary between the lands of the parties and ordered the appellant to move his houses.


The appellant has not established any valid ground of appeal. Despite the terms of his notice of appeal he does not suggest today that he was prevented from calling a witness. We also note from the record that no mention was made to the magistrates about the appellant having a witness to call. No bias on the part of the magistrates has been shown. The appellant did not allege bias at the original hearing and he has not alleged it today.


The magistrates were quite entitled to accept the respondent's evidence and such evidence fully supports their decision. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any error in law on the part of the magistrates.


There are thus no circumstances to justify our interference with the decision of the lower court. The appeal must fail and is dismissed accordingly.


Right of appeal explained.


THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(23/07/96)


TEKAIE TENANORA
Magistrate
(23/07/96)


BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate
(23/07/96)


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ki/cases/KIHC/1996/44.html