Tanaki v Edwin [2023] KIHC 47; Civil Review 4 of 2021 (1 December 2023)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Review 4 of 2021

BETWEEN:	KOROTAERE TANAKI, TABOKAI TANAKI, TEAUATARA TANAKI, KAITITI TANAKI, TOKATAANE BOUTU, BUREBURE BOUTU Applicants
AND	CLEMONS EDWIN WITH BROTHERS AND SISTERS
	Respondents
Date of Hearing:	15 November 2023
	1 December 2023
Appearances:	Ms. Taaira Timeon for the Applicants
	Ms. Botika Maitinnara for the Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Introduction

1. This is an application for a review of a decision of the Single Magistrate in case number Bailan 10/15 dated 5 February 2015 regarding the registration of the Respondents after their mother on her lands Temoti 610b and Kene 670ao.
   
2. The application was filed late on 22 April 2021, and an extension of time was allowed by this Court on 30 August 2023.
   

Submissions and Court Analysis

3. The first ground in support of the application for review is the breach of natural justice. The applicants claimed they should be invited to the hearing of Bailan 10/15 as they are the original landowners of this land, Kene 670ao, from the decision of case number Bailan 53/15.
4. Counsel submitted that the applicants’ great-grandmother, Kata, was the original landowner who passed on the land to her son, Ruaia, in CN 483/48. The applicants’ father, Tanaki, owned the land from his father, Ruaia. The respondents’s mother came out from Kata’s brother, Arikitau, but Arikitau was not registered on Kene 670ao.
   
5. The second ground relates to the principle of indefeasibility of the applicants’ title, which cannot be disturbed except on appeal or review; hence, the magistrate court lacks jurisdiction in allowing the transfer of title to the respondents. They claimed that their ownership started in 1948, making their title indefeasible.
   
6. The third ground relates to the lack of ownership of the respondent’s mother over the land Kene 670ao; hence, the magistrate should not allow the transfer of title to her children, the respondents. They based this argument on the history of their ownership in 1948, as explained in paragraph 4 above.
   
7. After considering both arguments, I am inclined to accept the respondent’s argument for the following reasons;
   
   • - First, in Bailan 10/15, the respondents went to court to de-register their mother's name from her two lands, Kene 670ao and Temoti610b. Their application was granted, and their names were registered over their mother’s lands. The magistrate court did not doubt their mother’s ownership after seeing her certificate of ownership. Although the decision did not mention the certificate of ownership, the applicant, Teauatara Tanaki, mentioned in her affidavit that the certificate of ownership of the respondent’s mother was submitted to the magistrate court.
   • - Second, the case Bailan 53/15, in which the applicants based their ownership, was conducted the same day as Bailn 10/15. Both cases were heard on 5 February 2015. The applicants’ case in Bailan 53/15 concerns the registration of their names after their father over his land, Kene 670ao. Therefore, in effect, the applicants got their ownership on Kene 670ao on the same day as the respondents, which means they cannot claim that they owned the land before the respondents. Natural justice is clearly not an issue here.
   • - Third, the applicants may be correct in saying that their grandfather Ruaia is the original landowner pursuant to the decision of CN 483/48, but their father, Tanaki Ruaia, had allowed the registration of the issues of Arikitaake, the respondent’s mother was one of the issues, over the land Kene in CN 134/02. This decision gives title to the respondent’s mother and others over Kene 670ao. Therefore, the indefeasibility of the title is not an issue.
8. It becomes evident that the applicants are disputing the title of the respondents’ mother over Kene 670ao; however, the magistrate did not make an error in granting the registration of the respondents over their mother’s land as their mother had a certificate of ownership over these lands.
   

Conclusion

9. For the reasons stated above, leave to apply for an order of certiorari is NOT granted.
   
10. Cost to the Respondents to be taxed if not agreed.
    

ORDER accordingly.

HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Acting Chief Justice