Teoaki v Rineieta [1998] KIHC 14; HCLA 024.97 (18 February 1998)

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

HCLA 24/97

BETWEEN:

AKINETI TAOKAI
Appellant

AND:

RINEIETA WITH
BROTHERS AND SISTERS
Respondents

Appellant in person
Mr T Teiwaki for Respondents

Date of Hearing: 6 February 1998

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against the decision of Single Magistrate K. Tibaa in case No. 18/97 delivered on 11 February 1997.

The dispute is over the ownership of the land Temoaniwae 825e. The appellant appeals on the ground that the Single Magistrate erred in law in applying the Limitation Act instead of the existing laws of Kiribati. A study of the decision will show that although counsel for the respondent argued the Limitation Act, the Single Magistrate did not base his decision on it but on the indefeasibility of title provided by section 4(1)(a) of the Native Lands Ordinance Cap. 61.

The respondents succeeded to the title of the subject land upon the death of their father, Tebeia Matang. Tebeia Matang obtained title to the land from the distribution of the estate of Ikaati Tekaai, who died issueless, on the 4^th March 1949 in case No. 10/49. Tebeia Matang's title was registered by the Lands Commission. Ikaati Tekaai was said to be a brother of Tebeia Matang's grandfather.

The appellant claims that the land was wrongfully given to Tebeia Matang as the result of a fraudulent family tree having been presented in case No. 10/49. According to the appellant, Ikaati Tekaai was a brother of her grandmother Baraua, and the respondents are not related to her (the appellant) in any way. When Ikaati Tekaai was dying, he was looked after by the appellant's father's sister Tiaua and her son Ioakim and the appellant's sister Teretia. When Ikaati died, the old lady Tiaua told the appellant and her family that they were to take over his land. However, they decided to stay on Abaiang, not expecting anyone to touch their land on Tarawa. When they eventually came to Tarawa some time in 1983 or so, they were surprised to find other people occupying the land.

The family of the respondents have held title to the land for almost 50 years. From our perusal of the minutes of the proceedings in the lower court, the appellant's accusations of fraud are based on hearsay evidence only. Furthermore, although the appellant was only about 16 years old when case No. 10/49 was heard, the record shows that her cousin Ioakim was present at the hearing. He not only did not object to the family tree that was presented but received a share of the estate himself.

We therefore did not think that any fraud has been established. However, we wish to emphasise that even if it had, the title of Tebeia Matang was registered by the Lands Commission and, by virtue of section 4(1)(a) of the Native Lands Ordinance, is indefeasible, that is, it cannot be challenged. That is the law, and the Single Magistrate was bound to follow it. He did not fall into any error. No court has the power to refuse to follow that law.

It follows from what we have said that the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant is advised that she has the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal within 6 weeks.

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

TEKAIE TENANORA
Magistrate
(18/02/98)

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate
(18/02/98)