Tibau v Tamoaieta [2009] KIHC 29; Civil Case 128 of 2008 (9 July 2009)

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

HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 128 OF 2008

BETWEEN:

NEI TABETA TIBAU
NEI KAAIREKE KAROTU FOR ISSUES OF
KAROTU TIBAU
APPLICANTS

AND:

NAUEA TAMOAIETA FOR TENEBU TIBAU
1ST RESPONDENT

NEI TARA BAURO
2ND RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE SINGLE MAGISTRATE
3RD RESPONDENT

For the Applicants: Mr Banuera Berina
For the 2nd Respondent: Ms Taoing Taoaba
Attorney General to abide order of Court

Date of Hearing: 9 July 2009

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

Whether or not to extend time within which to make this application has been a difficult decision. The boundary determination was in June 2004. The application was filed in August 2008 – a little over four years later. The claim is that not all the owners of the land interested in the determination were notified of it and did not find out about it until 2008. The applicants claim to have been owners of the land: when they found out about the determination they discovered their boundary had been affected. Yet all this time Nauea the son of the deceased sister of the applicant Nei Tabeta has been living on the land. All Mr Berina can say is that Nauea allowed the Single Magistrate to understand he was the sole owner and ever since he has concealed the fact of the boundary determination from N. Tabeta his aunt. It is difficult to believe.

Four years is not the longest of delays but it is still substantial. The principle of certainty of title is against the applicants even though the delay is only about four years.

After hearing argument and giving the question anxious consideration I am against the applicants. Time within which to apply will not be extended.

The application for certiorari is refused.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice