Attorney General IRO Director of Lands v Inatio [2017] KIHC 12; Civil Case 66 of 2015 (9 March 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI 2017

CIVIL CASE NO. 66 OF 2015

[ATTORNEY GENERAL IRO DIRECTOR OF
[LANDS PLAINTIFF
[
BETWEEN [AND
[
[ERITABETA INATIO
[PERSONS UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS

Before: The Hon Chief Justice Sir John Muria

23 March 2016

Mr Monoo Mweretaka for Plaintiff
Mr Banuera Berina for Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

Muria, CJ: On 23 March 2016, I struck out the application by the Attorney General to evict the respondents and repossess part of the land Teinanika 800n, in particular the Houseplot (Te Mwaake). The application was made pursuant to section 3 of the Squatters (Recovery of Lands) Act 2005. Below are the reasons.

A dispute over the Houseplot (Te Mwaake) on the land Teinanika 800n in Bairiki started some time in 2000 when one Nei Rineieta sought to evict the first respondent from the land in question. Nei Rineieta failed in her attempt to evict the first respondent because she had no legal standing to bring the eviction proceedings against the first respondent then.

Then in 2012, a dispute over the occupancy of the Houseplot came before the Court between the first respondent and one Ioane. This Court held that the house on the Houseplot belongs to the first respondent and ordered Ioane together with his family to vacate the first respondent’s premises.

The present case is brought by the Director of Lands to recover possession of the land and effectively to dispossess the first respondent from her house standing on the Houseplot.

It is important to note that the Director of Lands (applicant in the present case) confirmed by letter on 3 June 2005 that the first respondent was the owner of the Houseplot. Relying in support from the letter from the applicant, the first respondent sought to remove Ioane Inatio from her house on the Houseplot. She succeeded in her application in 2014.

The applicant now says that his letter of 3 June 2005 was a mistake due to ‘conflicting evidence’ of rights over the Houseplot, but left the decision to the Government. It is suggested in the submission by Mr Mweretaka of Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has documents proving that Nei Rineieta is the owner of the plot. As such the applicant now seeks to intervene by bringing the present action to recover possession and to evict the first respondent from the Houseplot. The Houseplot would then be given to Nei Rineieta is the obvious intended result.

Given the past history of the case, it is obvious that the applicant has brought this case to assist one Nei Rineieta to regain control over the property in question. However, there is nothing to prevent Nei Rineieta from bringing an action against the first respondent. She had done that before and she failed. That does not prevent her from instituting a private action again against the first respondent. But to have the Attorney General do the bidding for her against the first respondent is not right.

The Attorney General can only institute action on behalf of a private citizen through relator action. This is not a relator action where the matter is of a public interest and the private citizen has justified that the Attorney General’s name should be used to institute the action. The present case is not such a case at all. Nei Rineieta must be left to pursue her dispute against the first respondent over the land in question through private law action.

As I have already ordered on 23 March 2016, the present action must be struck out.

Dated the 9^th day of March 2017

SIR JOHN MURIA
Chief Justice