PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Kiribati

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Kiribati >> 2024 >> [2024] KIHC 42

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Rakunoua v Temeamea [2024] KIHC 42; HCLA 20 of 2021 (17 September 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI


HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 20 of 2021


BETWEEN: Maroua Rakunoua (for issues of Kourabi Touru)
Appellants

AND: Kourabi Temeamea (for issues of Namaere Toaki)

1st Respondent


AND: Tiaoti Robuti (with sibling for issues of Ema Kourabi)

2nd Second Respondent


AND: Temarena Tebaara (with issues of first & third spouse for issues of Ema Kourabi)
3rd Respondent


Date of Hearing: 18 June, 20 August 2024
Date of Judgment: 17 September 2024


Appearances: Ms Taaira Timeon for the Appellants
Ms Taoing Taoaba for the 2nd Respondent
Ms Botika Maitinnara for 1st and 3rd Respondents


JUDGMENT


  1. Background
1.1. Kourabi Toauru’s lands, which include land plots Takabito 718i and Tebanga 717e in Eita, Tarawa and others as shown in the copy of the land register tendered as evidence in the magistrate court, are claimed to have been transferred by way of fraud from Kourabi Toauru to Ema Kourabi and siblings.

1.2. Minutes of CN 84/48 proceedings, dated 5/11/48, is about the de-registration of Kourabi Toauru and registration of Ema Kourabi and siblings over their father’s lands, Kourabi Toauru after he passed away.
1.3. This transfer of title is claimed to be fraudulent, firstly, because the minutes were not signed, and, secondly, because the said Kourabi Toauru is claimed to be the plaintiffs’, now appellants', ancestor, not the father of Ema Kourabi and siblings. The Single Magistrate considered this action taken by the said Ema and siblings to be properly done through the court and supported by the land register, therefore dismissing the case. The plaintiffs disagreed with the decision, hence the appeal.
  1. The Appeal
2.1. Ground of Appeal

One ground was filed in support of the appeal as quoted below from the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal;


The Single Magistrate erred in law in dismissing the application and the reason to support its decision was based upon the grounds that there was insufficient evidence established before the court. The decision was erroneous in law because, on the face of the evidence laid before the court, there was strong and compelling evidence to support its finding that there was fraud. The evidence of the witness Nei Maroua Rakunoua was unchallenged as there was no cross-examination by the Respondens and there was no evidence adduced to support their defence. The evidence stood was the unchallenged evidence of Maroua Rakunoua sufficient for the court to conclude that the allegation of fraud was made out. The decision was against the weight of the evidence.”


  1. Principle in deciding alleged fraud in land cases.
3.1. The Single Magistrate in Betlan 81/21 based his decision on the principles established in the case of Bukaineti v Tekimwa [2007] KICA 7; Land Appeal 05/2007 (20 July 2017). The relevant paragraph from Bukaineti is quoted below for ease of reference:

“The person making the allegation must prove that the evidence or statement challenged was a false statement of fact, that the person making it knew it was false and that it was intended that the person or court to whom it was made would act on it. The person making it must have known that the statement challenged was dishonest and morally wrong, and that it was made with intent to deceive.

The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities, but because of the serious nature of an allegation of fraud, there must be strong, convincing evidence that the statement was made knowing it was false and with intent to deceive. Although that may be proved by circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be compelling and allow no other reasonable explanation. Thus, fraud is difficult to establish. Many of the cases we have seen in this jurisdiction where fraud is alleged fall far short of what is required to prove it.”


  1. Submissions and Court’s Analysis
4.1 Counsel for the appellants relied on Maroua Rakunoua’s affidavit and minutes of the CN 84/48 proceedings and argued that the evidence provided in the said documents is strong and sufficient enough to prove the elements of fraud as advocated in the case of Bukaineti.

4.2 The appellants based their argument on Maroua’s evidence showing a family tree that showed them to be descendants of the original owner of the lands, Kourabi Toauru. In their Counsel’s submission in Betlan 81/21, she stated that the family tree shown in the minutes of the said CN 84/48 proceedings was false as Ema Kourabi and siblings were not children of the land owner, Kourabi Toauru. The appellants argue that the Kourabi Toauru referred to in CN 84/48 is their descendant, Kourabi, not the father of Ema Kourabi and siblings. This was their primary evidence in support of the alleged fraud in CN 84/48.

4.3 Maroua also stated that CN 84/48 minutes was not signed and should not be considered valid. Regardless, the respondents responded to this point in the lower court by saying that the minutes carry the signature and stamp of the Archives Office, which was always accepted by the courts: the Magistrates and High Court. This second argument was not raised on appeal; therefore, it is not an issue.

4.4 Paragraph 9 of the appellant’s Counsel’s submission only listed four (4) main issues claiming to be the unchallenged evidence of Maroua Rakunoua on which they based their main argument; such evidence is listed below;

4.5 Ieremia Betero was the appellant’s second witness. He told the magistrate court that he was related to the appellants as their ancestors, Kourabi and Nei Bakitakoto, were siblings. He claimed the respondents were not associated with Kourabi Toauru. He further stated that he did not know the respondents or their family lineage. Although he claimed to be related to the appellant, he could not state the appellant's family lineage from Kourabi when cross-examined.

4.6 The appellants claimed that the respondents did not contest Maroua Rakunoua and Ieremia Betero’s evidence in Betlan 81/21, nor was this evidence taken into account by the magistrate court in its decision. The appellants argued that since this was the only evidence before the magistrate court in Betlan 81/21, it was enough to prove the alleged fraud.

4.5. In reply, the respondents agreed with the Single Magistrate’s findings that the alleged fraud could not be proved as evidence produced by the appellants was insufficient to prove the elements of fraud pursuant to the Bukaineti principle.

4.6. The second respondents, through Counsel, argued that the plaintiffs, now appellants, have the burden of proof to provide strong and compelling evidence that allows no other reasonable explanation than the commission of fraud; hence, the respondents owed no duty to disprove it. Even though the respondent did not call evidence, the Single Magistrate could not find fraud from the only evidence before it, which was the appellant’s evidence.

4.7. The first and third respondents, through Counsel, also submitted the same argument that it was wrong to think that because the only evidence before the magistrate court was the appellants’, the magistrate court must allow their claim. Both Counsels submitted, and we agree, that the magistrate court is entitled to come to its judgment when it finds no compelling evidence to direct them to find fraud, even if the other party called no evidence.

4.8. The respondents also submitted that there was no fraud in the proceedings of CN 84/48 as the case was about the transfer of title of lands from the deceased father, Kourabi Toauru, to his children, Emma Kourabi and her siblings.

4.9. Respondent Counsels also submitted on the respondents’ indefeasibility of title over the disputed lands. Counsels stated that after more than seventy years (70), from 1948 to 2021, the respondents have lived on the lands without any challenge from the appellants or their ancestors. They have enjoyed their right over their lands for more than 70 years.

4.10. We considered the proceedings on appeal, Betlan 81/21, together with the arguments of both parties before us and have to agree with the decision of the magistrate court for the following reasons;

ORDER


4.1. For the above reasons,


  1. the appeal is not allowed;
  2. the decision in Betlan 81/21 is affirmed, and
  3. Cost to be paid to the Respondents, to be taxed if not agreed.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice


TITAN TOAKAI RITETI MANINRAKA
Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ki/cases/KIHC/2024/42.html