Kaere v Ioeru [2007] KIHC 111; High Court Civil Case 95 of 2006 (21 June 2007)

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

High Court Civil Case 95 of 2006

BETWEEN:

MOREI KAERE
(for Issues of Teraumwemwe, Mataro & Kairo)
Applicants

AND:

OREMWA IOERU
1st Respondent

MATANEAI NAARO
(for Issues of NAARO BONTETAAKE)
2ndRespondent

For the Applicant: Ms Taoing Taoaba
For the 1st Respondent: Mr Banuera Berina
For the 2nd Respondent: Mr Karotu Tiba

Date of Hearing: 21 June 2007

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

In CN 74/88 in the North Tarawa Magistrates’ Court Naaro Ietaake purported to sell a piece of land at Buota to the first respondent Oremwa Ioeru. Subsequently Oremwa built a house on the land and has lived there ever since. Although Naaro in Court described the land as his, in fact it belonged to an old lady, N. Taruru. N. Taruru lived with Naaro and Mr Berina has suggested that even though he referred to the land as his, Naaro was acting as the agent of N. Taruru. N. Taruru died in 1992 by which time Oremwa was occupying the land and had built a house.
N. Taruru apparently did nothing to ask why Oremwa was there, let alone to protest.

It was not until 2006 when the applicant applied for a boundary determination that any protest by anyone was made about the sale in 1988.

The only suggestion of fraud is in para 20 of the second respondent’s affidavit:-

In fact our father Naaro had fraudulently concealed the fact that the land Tabonbuota was Nei Taruru’s land. He also did not tell us and other family members about the sale.

That allegation is certainly not enough of itself to justify setting aside the 1988 decision. Fraud must be strictly proved and this is not strict proof.

None of the parties has asked to go to oral evidence.

Even though I have sympathy with the applicant and the second respondent (they have made common cause) it all happened nearly 19 years ago. The first respondent has enjoyed title to the land all this time. The principle of certainty of title requires that his title should not now be disturbed. I am not able to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant.

The application for certiorari is refused.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice