PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Kiribati

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Kiribati >> 2010 >> [2010] KIHC 33

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Tebara v Tebara [2010] KIHC 33; Civil Case 173 of 2009 (9 March 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION


High Court Civil Case 173 of 2009


HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI


BETWEEN:


TINA TEBARA mt mm
Applicants


AND:


TEMARENA TEBARA
1st Respondent


TAMARITI BUREA
2nd Respondent


For the Applicants: Mr Michael Takabwebwe
For the 1st Respondent: Ms Elsie Karakaua
For the 2nd Respondent: Ms Maere Kirata


Date of Hearing: 9 March 2010


JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)


Application for certiorari to quash a decision made in 1989. The first point to be determined is whether to extend time within to apply. The applicant has a formidable hurdle to jump – it is 20 years since the decision the subject of this application.


Mr Takabwebwe has argued strongly that his clients have been on the land since 1980 believing that they were the owners. This belief is based upon a decision in 1956. It was only when proceedings were taken in 2009 to evict them that they found out about the 1989 decision. In the meantime they have been living on the land and have developed it at considerable expense. No doubt if they are now evicted they will suffer inconvenience and hardship. Yet they are asking the Court to quash a decision made 20 years ago. Mr Takabwebwe has pointed to the about 28 year delay before the 1989 proceedings. Yet this Court cannot look back further than the case the subject of this application: that is 1989.


In coming to a conclusion I have taken into account all the material before the Court in affidavit form as well as the submissions of counsel. Despite Mr Takabwebwe’s persuasive arguments the principle of certainty of title is simply too strong. Rights established 20 years ago should not be disturbed unless in the most exceptional circumstances and I cannot find that these circumstances are sufficiently exceptional to justify disturbance.


Time within which to apply will not be extended. The application is refused.


THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ki/cases/KIHC/2010/33.html