Teangauba v Beia [2015] KIHC 7; Civil Case 33 of 2013 (16 March 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI 2014
CIVIL CASE NO. 33 OF 2013

BETWEEN

BETERO TEANGAUBA FOR THE FAMILY OF NEI KAARO TABOKAI
APPLICANTS

AND

KAURIRI BEIA AND OTHERS
RESPONDENTS

Before: The Hon Chief Justice Sir John Muria

12 & 16 March 2015

Mr Banuera Berina for Applicants
Ms Botika Maitinnara for Toata Aroito, Taam Tekaai, Matiera Amitong and Kataotao Amitong (4 Respondents)
Mr Monoo Mweretaka for Attorney General (Respondent)
Ms Taoing Taoaba not present for Bebeete Tekaai and Bauaa Tibwere
(2 Respondents)
Remaining Respondents Unrepresented

JUDGMENT

Muria CJ: This is an application for extension of time to apply for leave to bring judicial review by way of certiorari proceedings. The decision sought to be challenged is in respect of a land case, CN 487 of 1997.

On 28 February 1997 the Magistrates' Court in CN 487/97, gave judgment and decided that the property concerned, Tekaureniman did not belong to either of the disputing parties and so it belongs to the State. The property concerned is not land as such but a pile of stones (presumably assembled together) for various uses by the owners of Tekaureniman. At high tide Tekaureniman concerned was usually submerged.

The rules provide that an application for leave to issue judicial review must be made within six months from the date of the decision complained of. In this case the applicants sought to challenge the Magistrates' Court's decision after 16 years. This is too long a delay to bring such challenge to a decision of the Court which has been accepted by the parties to the case, much more so, where the person now challenging the decision was not a party to the case in the Court below. Tekaureniman is said to be just opposite the applicants' land Tekaurama and those involved in the case in 1997 lived in and around the locality also. I do not believe that it is reasonable for the applicants to claim that they were not aware of the decision of the Magistrates' Court for 16 years.

There is however an important issue of public interest involved in this case which can only be resolved if the matter is allowed to be argued. This is the right of the State to own land submerged at high tide and to which no parties have been registered as owners.

There is also a further factor to bear in mind here, namely that despite the Magistrates' Court's decision granting the ownership right of Tekaureniman to the Government, the applicants continue to use Tekaureniman (pile of stones) until today without any complaint by the Government. So despite the lengthy delay, the Government would not be materially prejudiced by the challenge now raised by the applicants.

If that is the only basis upon which the Court is to exercise its discretion in this case, I do not feel it would be right to allow the applicants extension of time to challenge the decision of the Magistrates' Court made 16 years ago.

It is for these reasons that the Court exercises its discretion and grant extension of time to apply for leave to issue judicial review proceedings.

Leave for judicial review is granted. All documents for judicial review to be served on parties within 14 days. First hearing on 24 April 2015. No prejudice to respondents.

Dated the 16th day of March 2015

SIR JOHN MURIA
Chief Justice