Betero v Marewe [2003] KIHC 201; Land Appeal 57 of 2001 (24 April 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 57 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

TAEUEA BETERO MT MM
TATAKE YEETING
APPELLANTS

AND:

NANTOON MAREWE & OTHERS
RESPONDENTS

FOR THE APPELLANTS: MR AOMORO AMTEN
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: MR BANUERA BERINA

DATE OF HEARING: 24 APRIL 2003

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

By the time of the hearing of this appeal the complaint of the appellants was that not all parties concerned were aware of the boundary determination. The original ground, filed by Taeuea in person was "I am dissatisfied by a judgment that it was affecting marks and the size of our land which we normally used to by our descendant".

Mr Berina has pointed out that the Certificate of Ownership shews Taeuea as the only owner of the land.

We invited the Single Magistrate to tell us who was present at the boundary determination. Not surprisingly he cannot give all names but he does say, "I confirm the presence of both Nantoon Namarewe from the plaintiff's side and Taeuea Betero from the defendant's side through-out the hearing. I also recalled that both side were accompanied on site by relatives, co-owners and interested parties during the hearing. I did not recognise those people but I knew that they were interested parties to the boundary determination. I did not bother to enquire their names because I knew that both side were represented and through out the hearing there was no complaint raised about the absence of any interested parties."

That the Single Magistrate was satisfied both sides were represented is most persuasive. He is unlikely to have gone ahead unless he were satisfied of that. Then there is the Certificate of Ownership shewing Taeuea as sole owner: no requirement for others to be present.

These two considerations tip the scales in favour of the Respondents.

The appeal is dismissed.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
CHIEF JUSTICE

TEKAIE TENANORA
MAGISTRATE

BETERO KAITANGARE
MAGISTRATE