Taburues v Davis [2024] KIHC 34; Civil Case 33 of 2014 (23 October 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 33 OF 2014

BETWEEN: ARUITITI TABURUES MTMM AND OTHERS

Applicants

AND: TEAOTE BURABURA DAVIS MTMM AND OTHERS

1^st Respondent

AND: AG FOR THE LANDS COURT

2^nd Respondent

Date of hearing: 23 October 2024

Date of Judgment: 23 October 2024

Appearances: Ms. Botika Maitinnara for the Applicant

Mr. Tabirbiri Tentau for 1^st Respondents (not present)

J U D G M E N T

Introduction

1. This is an application for an order of certiorari to be issued against the decision of CN 155/12, delivered on 27 January 2012.
2. Only Counsel for the Applicant appeared for the hearing. No appearance by and for the Respondents even though their Counsel was duly served with the notice of hearing. The case hearing proceeded in their absence.
3. The Applicant’s Counsel submitted that the High Court had granted them leave for their extension of time in 2014. However, there was no copy or record of this in the case file, so this Court decided to consider both applications today.
4. The Applicant’s case is that the dispute concerns the plot of land, namely Temoaniwae 760a in Banraeaba.
5. In CN 344/08, the Applicants with brothers and sisters were registered over this land.
6. Four years later, in CN 155/12, Nei Teaote and Others, the Respondents in this case appeared in court and had their names registered over the same land, Temoaniwae 760a, without inviting the Applicants.
7. The Applicants took out boundary determination of the land Temoaniwae 760a and became aware of the Respondents’ names over the land, which was done in CN 155/12.
8. The result of the CN 155/12 is that the land Temoaniwae 760a is now registered under all the Applicants and Respondents.
9. This application is for a certiorari order to have this case CN 155/12 quashed since it was decided without the presence of the Applicants.

RESULT and ORDER

10. After considering the above argument for the Applicants, I am satisfied that leave for extension of time is granted; although it was said to have been granted back in 2014, there is no copy of it in the case file.
11. This Court is also satisfied, for reasons stated above, that the application for an order of certiorari is granted to quash the decision of CN 155/12.
12. Cost to the Applicant to be agreed or taxed.
    

THE HON. TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA

CHIEF JUSTICE