Uni v Kataba [2024] KIHC 46; HCLA 3 of 2023 (9 October 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 3 OF 2023

BETWEEN: TAURANGA UNI,

TIA BABAIRE IBUKIN UNIWAANEN BETIO

Appellant

AND: RIRI KATABA
Respondents

Date of Hearing: 27 AUGUST 2024
Date of Judgment: 9 October 2024

Appearances: Ms Taaira Timeon for the Appellant
Ms Botika Maitinnara for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

A brief background of the case;

1. The case is an appeal against the Magistrates Court's decision in Miscellaneous Application 257 of 2021, delivered on 18 November 2022, arising from Betlan 746 of 2018.
   
2. The application was in relation to the Respondent's breach of the court order dated 11 March 2020. However, the Magistrate found no breach by the Respondent and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant’s application.
   
3. The Appellant filed an appeal against this decision.
   

Appeal ground

4. The Appellant filed one ground in support of his appeal as follows;
   

The decision of the Magistrate court in dismissing the appellant’s application that the respondent was not found in contempt of court order dated 11 May^[1] 2020 was against the weight of evidence. The court found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove who was responsible for looking after the maneaba as per the decision of His Worship Tiotaake Tebwe, but the evidence adduced by the witness of the appellant showed clearly who was responsible for looking after the maneaba and this was confirmed by the evidence of the respondent when re-examined by her counsel;

5. The Appellant, through Counsel, submits that the Magistrate court's decision to find the Respondent not in breach of the order dated 11 March 2020, which states that ‘both parties must be restrained from occupying the maneaba, except for those who are responsible to looking after it.’ was not correct because it was clear that the Respondent knew that the shifts to look after the maneaba is rotated amongst the eight villages in Betio. Still, the Respondent refused to leave the maneaba and stayed in it without letting others take their turns.
   
6. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Order given by the single magistrate is unclear as to who is to look after the maneaba because it is not clearly stated in the Order. Counsel further submits that the respondent is amongst those to look after the maneaba, which is why she was there looking after the maneaba, and the single magistrate agreed that she did not breach the court order dated 11 March 2020.
   

Analysis

7. Having heard both sides, this court agrees that the Order given by the Single Magistrate dated 11 March 2020 is unclear and failed to mention the process of how the maneaba should be looked after or by whom. The Order only specifies that those who can stay in the maneaba are only those who are responsible for looking after the maneaba. We believe the only way to know how the maneaba should be looked after is when the magistrate court inquired about it from the parties. Both parties adduced evidence on this matter, but the magistrate could not understand it.
   
8. The submission for the Respondent is that she stayed in the maneaba when the ‘Unaine’ (old ladies) continued to stay there after their agreement with her was terminated. The Unaine entered into an agreement with the Respondent to use the maneaba for a monthly rent of $200. The Respondent terminated the agreement when the ‘unimwane’ (old men) got upset. The Unaine remained in the maneaba, so she also entered it.
   
9. According to Unimwane (Appellant), there was an existing practice of eight villages looking after the maneaba, one village taking one month to do so. They claimed the Respondent had breached the court order of 11 March 2020 when she stayed in the maneaba outside of this standard practice.
   
10. The Respondent claimed that that practice had been canceled when she entered into an agreement with the Unaine (old ladies), and the Unaine started using the maneaba following this agreement. So, when this agreement was terminated, she saw that the Unaine still occupied the maneaba, so she decided to enter the maneaba as well to let everyone know that no one is allowed to use it while the court is still determining its use.
    
11. The magistrate court dismissed the case against the Respondent not because the Respondent was not in breach of the court order dated 11 March 2020 but because that court order did not clearly state how and by whom the maneaba should be looked after. With the evidence before the magistrate, the court could not determine this process. However, the magistrate court understood that the Respondent was one of those who would take turns to look after the maneaba.
    
12. We agree that the Order of 11 March 2020 is ambiguous as it did not specify the arrangement at the relevant time. We note in the evidence before the court below the standard practice where the eight villages took turns for one month to look after the maneaba. Also noted is the Respondent’s argument that this standard practice had stopped when the Unaine entered an agreement with the Respondent. However, there was evidence before the court below that the Respondent later terminated the agreement when the Unimwane got upset. We think the process of looking after the maneaba should then go back to the usual process before the agreement. What would that process be? The magistrate court could not understand the process or arrangement from the evidence before it and found that the Appellant, the plaintiff then, had failed to prove their case. We agree that the magistrate court had the discretion to come to this decision. There was no error made by the court below.
    

ORDER

For the above reasons,

1. The appeal is not allowed.
   
2. Cost to the Respondent.
   
3. We emphasize the importance of complying with the magistrate court order dated 11 March 2020 in case of Misc App 27/20 and Misc App 20/20.
   

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

TEETUA TEWERA RITETI MANINRAKA Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate

---

^[1] The month, May, as stated in the ground of appeal is incorrect. Both parties made referred to the Order dated 11 March 2020, instead of May. The copy of this Order was also included in the casefile from the lower court.