Ieu v Kakiaba [2024] KIHC 43; HCLA 26 of 2014 (17 September 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 26 of 2014

BETWEEN: Ieru Ieu MTMM
Appellant

AND Kaotiata Kakiaba MTMM, Marawa Tekanene and Trustees for LDS
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 27 August, 2024
Date of Judgment: 17 September 2024

Appearances: Mr Banuera Berina for the Appellant
Ms Botika Maitinnara for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. Background
   

1.1. The piece of land in dispute is Taubukinkabauea 807a in Bairiki. The total size of this piece of land is 0.798 acres.

1.2. This family tree helps illustrate and clarify the relations between the appellants and the former landowners of Tabukinkabauea 807a, Kakiaba and N. Marawa, who sold their shares to the respondents, LDS, in 1994 and 2003:

Taun

Tekanene

Kakiaba

N.Kainanai

Tekanene

Note: Modified from Magistrates Court’s judgment in CN224/97

Ieru Ieu (Appellant)

N.Marawa

N.Teretia

1.3. As shown, Ieru Ieu mtmm (with siblings), the appellants, are the children of N.Kainanai.

1.4. The magistrate court in Betlan 590/13 considered the evidence before it and found that the appellant’s mother, N. Kainanai, was one of the owners of Taubukinkabauea 807a. This was mentioned in the minutes of 84/83. In the proceedings of CN 224/97, there was also a mention that the appellants’s mother (N.Kainanai) owned the land. After the land sales by Kakiaba and Nei Marawa, N. Kainanai lost her title.

1.5. This case on appeal is somewhat similar to the LDS’s application to de-register Nei Marawa (issue of Tekanene) from Taubukinkabauea 708a, having bought it from Kakiaba, but lost the case as Marawa is the rightful heir of the property of her mother, Teretia, who is the daughter of Tekanene Tekanene (see judgment in CN 224/97). The LDS appealed the decision to the High Court (see judgment in HCLA 77/97) but failed as the High Court agreed with the magistrate court reasoning.

1.6. Conversely, this case on appeal, Betlan 590/13, was about rectifying the land register to allow Ieru Ieu mtmm to register as co-owners of the land alongside LDS. This was because they had not sold their deceased mother’s interest in the land to the LDS. Not only that, their consent for the sale of the land in question in 1994 by Kakiaba and in 2003 by Marawa was never sought nor obtained as they were out of the country in the Marshall Islands then. The magistrate court did not grant their application. The court stated it had no jurisdiction to overturn the other magistrate court's decision regarding the land sale to LDS, who is currently the land owner and did not agree that the appellants should be registered on the land with them.

1.7. The appellants are not satisfied with the decision, hence the appeal.

2. The Appeal

2.1. The appellants based their appeal on two main grounds, as follows:

1. the Lands Magistrates Court erred in law and in fact in finding the appellants had lost their interest in the land in dispute after its sale by Kakiaba and Marawa to the LDS for the mere reason that the said Kakiaba and Marawa did not and could not have sold the interest of the appellants in the said land without the knowledge or consent of the appellants; and
   
2. upon purchasing the land in question from Kakiaba and Marawa, the LDS knew very well that Kainanai, the appellants’ mother, also had an interest in the land.
   

2.2. Evidence in Support of the Appeal

2.2.1. In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on HCLA 77/97 (last paragraph, page 2), CN124/03 and CN 224/97. These three cases show that both Kakiaba and Marawa sold their interest in Taubukinkabauea 807a and that during the sale process, the LDS was well aware of Kainanai’s interest in the land in dispute.

2.2.2. Moreover, the appellants emphasize that none of this evidence shows that Kainanai’s interest was also included in the sale of Taubukinkabauea by Kakiaba and Marawa.

2.2.3. Furthermore, the appellants argue that during the sale process, it was evident that the LDS trustees were well aware of Kainanai’s interest in the land. It follows, therefore, that the LDS cannot claim to be unaware of the appellant’s interest in the land and, hence, cannot object to the appellant’s application to rectify the land register, which is no longer showing the appellants or their mother, Kainanai, as co-owner of the land in dispute.

3. Evidence against the Appeal

3.1. The thrust of the respondent’s objection against the appellants’ claim hinges around the very reason that rectification of the land register, now showing that the LDS is the sole registered owner of land plot Taubukinkabauea 807a, will subsequently result in the registration of Kainanai’s interest in the plots that the LDS had purchased from Kakiaba and Marawa. It is argued by the respondents (as may be implied from minutes of Betlan 590/13) that Kakiaba had been paid $33,043.37, together with the binding fee of $2,000.00 to bind Kakiaba not to sell the land until the LDS had been duly registered over the land, while an amount of $26,000.00 had been paid to Marawa to cover the total price of Taubukinkabauea 807a (which was $61,043.37 in total), hence the acceptance of the LDS’s registration over the Kakiaba and Marawa’s shares, in case number 124/03.

3.2. Moreover, the respondents further argue that the LDS made many expensive and invaluable structural developments on the land after its registration over the whole of Taubukinkabauea 807a, yet its sole ownership over the said land was never questioned; the appellants just challenged it after twenty years.

3.3. So, the respondents argue that applying for the rectification of the land register, to the effect that the appellants will be shown as co-owners of the respondents’ land, is not right. The respondents had purchased the land. The respondents did not argue against the appellants’ contention that their mother’s interest had not been sold. However, they submitted this as not being the proper course; maybe the appellants should challenge the sale of Kaiaba and Marawa’s plots if they think these sales had affected their mother’s share in the land.

4. The Court’s Stance on the Appeal

4.1. We agree with the respondents. The appellant cannot apply to be registered alongside the LDS because the LDS had purchased the land from Kakiaba and Marawa. If the appellants were allowed to be registered as co-owners, it would mean that they would take over the shares of Kakiaba and Marawa’s parents which the respondent had bought. Therefore, the magistrate court was correct in not granting the application because the LDS objected to it.

4.2 If the appellant claims they have lost their mother’s share in the land because of the sales by Kakiaba and Marawa, they must pursue other recourses to claim their share back.

B. ORDER

5. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is not allowed, and the decision in Betlan 590 of 2013 is affirmed accordingly. Cost to the respondent, to be taxed if not agreed.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

TEETUA TEWERA RITETI MANINRAKA
Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate