Etei v Bangaki [1998] KIHC 15; HCLA 060.97 (27 February 1998)

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

HCLA 60/97

BETWEEN:

TEERA ETEI
Appellant

AND:

BABONITI BANGAKI
Respondent

Mr D Lambourne for the Appellant
Mr B Berina for the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 27 February 1998

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against the decision of the South Tarawa Magistrates' Court (Lands) in case No. A56/97 ordering the eviction of the appellant from the land Takarake 651 o/2/1.

The appellant's only ground of appeal is that the Single Magistrate erred by failing to ascertain whether in fact the appellant was occupying the respondent's land. The appellant contends that the conclusion of the Single Magistrate that the appellant's house was on the respondent's land could not have been drawn from the evidence and that the Single Magistrate should have visited the site to ascertain whether the appellant's house was on the appellant's land or on adjoining land.

The respondent's sworn evidence in the court below was that she purchased the subject land from Meere Iotia and that the land is currently occupied by the appellant.

In her cross-examination of the respondent in the court below, the appellant referred to a previous case with the former owner Meere Iotia (281/95) in which the appellant had been ordered to leave the land.

The appellant's sworn evidence before the Single Magistrate was that she had been settled on Takarake since 1979. While she did not state which part of Takarake, she produced as an exhibit a letter from Tabaua Kotao, who sold the land to Rereia Tebuke, who then transferred it to Meere Iotia. That letter shows that she was living on the land owned by Rereia and that Rereia had also tried to evict her.

The Single Magistrate, in his judgment, traced the history of the subject land from Tabaua down to the present respondent. The judgment shows that Tabaua sold the land to Rereia. The letter from Tabaua, tendered by the appellant herself, shows that it was Rereia's land on which the appellant had settled. Rereia transferred the land to Meere, who sold it to the present respondent.

In the eviction proceedings between Meere and the appellant it was not in issue that the appellant's house stood on the land of Rereia. In the eviction proceedings between the present respondent and the appellant, there was no claim by the appellant that she had changed the location of her house since the previous proceedings.

We do not think that this appeal has any merit. There was ample evidence from which the Single Magistrate could conclude that the appellant's house stood on the respondent's land without actually having to go to the site.

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is ordered to vacate the subject land within one (1) month from today.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice

TEKAIE TENANORA
Magistrate

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate