Touai v Nawaia [1998] KIHC 44; HCLA 107.97 (18 September 1998)

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

HCLA 107/97

BETWEEN:

TAKEITONGA TOUAI
Appellant

AND:

AROBATI NAWAIA
Respondent

Appellant in person
Respondent deceased represented by son Buraua

Date of Hearing: 18 September 1998

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the decision of the Bairiki Magistrates' Court (Lands) delivered on the 25^th November 1997 in case No. 433/97. The respondent had applied to that Court to evict the appellant from the respondent's land at Bikenibeu. The respondent in that case was represented by the People's Lawyer who, if we may say so, is a very competent lawyer.

In the lower court the appellant admitted the respondent's claim but requested that she be given three months to leave the land. That request was acceptable to the respondent. In accordance with what the appellant had asked, the Single Magistrate made an order evicting her from the respondent's land but allowing her three months to leave the land. That decision is now appealed on the following grounds:

1. We were evicted without a reasonable ground
   
2. We had settled there for more than 30 years
   

Because the appellant was not legally represented in this appeal, we have done our best to explain to her the necessity of establishing grounds upon which the decision of the lower court ought to be set aside. Although the appellant placed great stock in the fact that she is not happy with the magistrates' court's decision and that she had paid her fee for the appeal, we have pointed out to her that those considerations are irrelevant and what must be shown is that the magistrates' court, in one way or another, made a mistake. She has been unable to do that despite the opportunity we have given her.

Specifically, in relation to ground 1 of the appeal, she was unable to demonstrate that she was evicted without a reasonable ground. She pointed out that she consented to the eviction on the advice of her lawyer but has not been able to show that such advice was not well founded.

As regards the second ground of appeal, she has not been able to establish how such a ground would have affected the magistrate's decision or would even have been relevant. Nothing of the sort was argued in the lower court.

What it came down to was that the appellant merely asked this Court to assist her in this matter. We have explained to her more than once that this court cannot interfere with the decision of the magistrates' court unless grounds have been established to do so.

We appreciate that the appellant has obviously had second thoughts about vacating the property as agreed. However, we have perused the minutes of the proceedings in the lower court and we are unable to say that there was any error by that court either in fact or in law. The appellant in those proceedings admitted the respondent's right to the land and nothing has been shown to us that such an admission was in error.

It follows that this appeal cannot succeed and is dismissed. The appellant is advised that she has a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal within 6 weeks. The appellant is ordered to vacate the respondent's land on or before the 18^th November 1998.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(18/09/98)

TEKAIE TENANORA
Magistrate
(18/09/98)

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate
(18/09/98)