Robati v Robati [1996] KIHC 65; HCLA 093.92 (24 July 1996)

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

HCLA 93/92

BETWEEN:

RUTIAN ROBATI & ISSUES
TEITI TENAMITA FOR HER SON
(ISSUES OF 1ST SPOUSE)
Appellants

AND:

NGAUEA ROBATI
Respondent

Mr D Lambourne for the Appellants
Respondent in person

JUDGMENT

The named appellant is Teiti Tenamita. She appeared in the court below for her son Tito Taberannang. However, Tito brings this appeal personally and he should have been shown on the record as the appellant.

The appeal is against the decision of the land magistrates' court in case 39/92 declaring the rightful owner of half of pit R1171 to be Bountarawa, the respondent's husband.

Counsel for the appellant submits that there was confusion in the lower court as to the type of transaction it was considering. If the lower court regarded the transaction as a purchase then, submits counsel, there was no one to purchase it from since the estate of Robati, the owner of the pit, had yet to be distributed.

If, on the other hand, the lower court was thinking of the transaction as a part-distribution of the estate then, counsel submits, the respondent's husband would not be entitled.

We are at a loss to understand how it could be suggested that the lower court might have been confused. The evidence is quite clear that what the respondent was claiming was that her husband bought the half pit from her father Robati while he was alive.

We note that the lower court approved the sale of half the pit to a person named Rabunateroro but left the approval of the sale of the other pit to a later date because of the intervention of the respondent's sister.

Rutian Robati gave evidence in the court below when it resumed the hearing that Robati sold half the pit to Rabunateroro and the other half to the respondent Ngauea. This witness was positive that the respondent's father sold the half pit to Ngauea. He did not secretly give it to her.

It appears from the evidence that Robati had debts totalling $800 at the time and wanted to sell the pit to discharge those debts.

On page 2 of the transcript, cross-examination by Teiti elicited that Robati owed money in the district so he sold half the pit to Rabunateroro and the other half to Bountarawa. He was going to sell that half to another person but the respondent told her husband to buy it.

The evidence makes it clear that what the lower court was asked to approve was a straight out sale of half the pit from Robati to Bountarawa. A distribution from Robati's estate does not enter into it.

The evidence fully supports the decision of the lower court approving the sale to Bountarawa. We cannot find anything wrong with that decision.

The appeal is dismissed.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(24/07/96)

TEKAIE TENANORA
Magistrate
(24/07/96)

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate
(24/07/96)