Raban v Iareta [1998] KIHC 13; HCLR 01.98 (18 February 1998)

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

HIGH COURT LAND REVIEW 1/98

BETWEEN:

NEI MEE RABAN
Applicant

AND:

TEIOKI IARETA
Defendant

JUDGMENT ON REVIEW

The applicant, Nei Mee Raban, seeks a review of Single Magistrate Karotu Tiba's decision in case No. 272/97.

Her complaint, as set out in her affidavit, is that on the day her mother died, the Single Magistrate allowed the mother's brother to withdraw $600 from the mother's NPF contributions in order to pay for her burial.

The applicant's argument is twofold. Firstly, she claims that the Single Magistrate should not have heard the case since the mother's home island was Beru. On perusing the minutes of the lower court proceedings, we cannot find any evidence of that fact. The evidence was that the mother had died in Tarawa and was going to be buried in Tarawa. Fortunately for the rest of the family, the Single Magistrate was able to reach a decision without having to refer the question of money for the funeral to a court in Beru. Given the state of the evidence, we cannot say that the Single Magistrate was wrong to hear the case.

The applicant next claims that the mother's brother was not a beneficiary under the will and should not have been given the money. The applicant herself was left only a 19% share of the mother's NPF savings. There are four other beneficiaries who, as far as we know, have not complained about some of the money being used for the mother's funeral. For all we know, they may have agreed to it, which is not uncommon when a loved one dies.

The mother's brother did not apply to the lower court for a share of the estate, but only for some money to bury his sister. The Single Magistrate was not told how much money was in the mother's estate, nor did he order a distribution of it. No doubt when the estate is distributed, some allowance will be made for the funeral costs.

The applicant has not missed out on her share, nor was there anything to show that her 19% share was put in jeopardy because of the funeral expenses. She has not persuaded us that she has suffered any injustice as a result of the Single Magistrate's decision and we do not propose to interfere with it.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(18/02/98)

TEKAIE TENANORA
Magistrate
(18/02/98)

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate
(18/02/98)