Langley v Langley [2018] KIHC 30; Civil Case 3A of 2017 (27 July 2018)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI 2018

CIVIL CASE NO. 3A OF 2017

[MARTIN LANGLEY AND OTHERS APPLICANTS
[
BETWEEN [AND
[
[TOMINIKO TEEN LANGLEY IRO THE LATE
[TEEN LANGLEY AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS

Before: The Hon Chief Justice Sir John Muria

20 July 2018

Ms Botika Maitinnara for Applicants
Ms Taoing Taoaba for 1^st Respondent

JUDGMENT

Muria, CJ: This is an application for extension of time to issue certiorari proceedings. Leave is required to issue certiorari proceedings, but such leave must be obtained within six months of the decision complained of. The applicants are out of time and now seek extension of time to apply for leave to issue certiorari proceedings.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

2. The deceased one George Langley died on 2 August 1979. He left behind six children namely, Mary George Langley, Julia George Langley,
Teen George Langley (first respondent’s father), Martin George Langley (applicant) Sam George Langley and Lissie George Langley. Jimmy Langley and Jinie Langley were not named in the Deceased Certificate of Death Register as issues of the deceased George Langley.

3. The applicant Martin Langley is the issue of the late George Langley. The other two co-applicants, Jimmy Langley and Jinie Langley, were said not to be issues of the deceased, George Langley. The first respondent is the son of
Teen George Langley and grandson of George Langley (deceased).
Teen George Langley has also passed away. The other respondents, Lizzie and Sam, are issues of George Langley (deceased) while Monika and Kabaeia are grandchildren of the deceased.

4. Following the death of George Langley, the matter of the land
Kabaeka 730u, Taborio, South Tarawa which was registered in the deceased’s name, was brought to the Magistrates’ Court in CN 159/2004 by Teen Langley (father of the first respondent) for the purpose of removing the deceased’s name over the said land. The deceased’s name was removed and the land
Kabaeka 730u was then registered in the name of Teen Langley together with brothers and sisters.

5. There has not been any problem with regard to the de-registration of the deceased’s name over the land. Case 159/2004 was accepted by all issues of the deceased, George Langley.

6. In 2005, Teen Langley (father of the first respondent) applied for distribution of the said land in the Magistrates’ Court Case 98/2005. The land was divided among the three issues of the deceased, namely Teen Langley,
Lissie Langley and Monika Tiritara. Consent of the other siblings were said to have been obtained, consenting to the distribution.

7. It is not clear that the consent of all the siblings was obtained. It is very likely that the applicants have not consented to the distribution in CN 98/05. They knew and were content that the land Kabaeka 730u was transferred out from their late father’s name and registered in the name of Teen Langley with brothers and sisters. But they did not know that the land was later distributed only among the three, Teen Langley, Lissie Langley and Monica Tiritara, in
CN 98/05.

8. It was said that the applicants were living in the Marshall Islands. It was also stated in the first respondent’s affidavit that the reason for not including the applicants’ name in the distribution was because they had land in their mother’s land. That arrangement was said to be the family understanding at the time.

9. There was no evidence before the Court of such family understanding. But if there was any, the applicants would have known about it and there would be no reason for the applicants to complain about the distribution done in 2005 in CN 98/05.

10. Also the fact that the applicants were residing outside of Kiribati in 2005, and Teen Langley, Lissie Langley and Monika Tiritara knew that the applicants were in the Marshall Islands, there was no reason not to inform them of the proposed distribution. Whether they attended or not was a matter for them, but at least they were notified since they were part of the deceased’s siblings. By not notifying the applicants, the respondents must be taken to have deliberately meant to exclude the applicants.

11. The provisions of the Native Lands Code envisage all children or
next-of-kin or siblings to have some say in the distribution of their late father’s land. (See s.14 of the Native Lands Code). If only one or some of the children or next-of-kin or siblings decided on the distribution of their late father’s land without the knowledge of the others, a dispute is bound to arise, as in the present case.

12. As to the question of delay in bringing the case, the Court will look at the whole circumstances of the case in order to decide whether the delay in bringing the case is inexcusable. In the present case, the Court takes into account the fact that the applicants were residing outside of Kiribati. The Court takes into account also the fact that the applicants came back to Kiribati for a visit in 2007, they were not told about CN 98/05 and they had no reason to suspect anything untoward happened over their land.

13. The first applicant came back again in 2016. It was then that he learned about the distribution over their land. He instructed a lawyer and filed the application in January 2017.

14. The other two applicants, Jimmy and Jinie, were left out also from the distribution. The respondent’s argument is that they were not issues of the deceased, George Langley. The affidavit of Sam Langley, one of the respondents who conceded to the present application, deposed to the fact that Jimmy Langley and Jinie Langley are issues of their late father George Langley, although it was not clear whether they were issues naturally or by adoption.

15. In the Court’s view there is clearly a case made out for the Court to exercise its discretion to extend time for the applicants to bring their case for leave to issue certiorari proceedings in this case. The applicants are granted extension of time to bring their judicial review proceedings in this case.

16. Application of extension of time granted.

Dated the 27^th day of July 2018

SIR JOHN MURIA
Chief Justice