Tirintetaak v Bureieta [2004] KIHC 188; Land Appeal 65 of 2003 (24 July 2004)

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

High Court Land Appeal 65 of 2003

Between:

TAONABUARIKI TIRINTETAAKE
Appellant

And:

TOURI BUREIETA
Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr Aomoro Amten
For the Respondent: Ms Taoing Taoaba

Date of Hearing: 24 July 2004

JUDGMENT

The respondent some years ago built a brick house on a house plot, occupied it for some years and left. The house was pulled down by whom is not known.

The appellant went into occupation of the house plot. Her grand father’s name appears on the Register and therefore she is regarded as an owner and has a right to occupy.

The respondent returned, found the house gone and the appellant living on the plot. She took these successful proceedings for eviction.

Mr Amten has submitted that his client being entitled as an owner to occupy and being in occupation cannot in law be evicted. She is entitled and in possession.

Ms Taoaba has referred us to page 16 of the “Introduction to Kiribati Land Law” by R G Topping:

A householder is free to remain in occupancy. This has been held in Nei Tuntun’s case to mean that no new houseplots can be created after 1956 except with the express consent of the parties. Therefore in order to establish a houseplot it must be proved to have existed before 1956. Moreover no interest will be created unless some indication of the existence of the houseplot is shown in the Register. Mere permission to reside however long ago it was given does not create a houseplot. If the permission to remain is revoked the person must go. A houseplot is an interest in the land and must be registered if it is to be an estate.

Ms Taoaba’s client claims that her grand father established the house plot before 1956, indeed before the War. Perhaps so, although there is no evidence to that effect. However Ms Taoaba has to acknowledge that no “indication of the existence of the house plot is shewn on the Register”.

That acknowledgment is decisive. The appellant is entitled: her grand father was registered as an owner and she is in possession. In the absence of some indication on the Register the respondent can claim no title.

The appeal is allowed and the order for eviction quashed.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate

RARATU IEITA
Magistrate