Tioti v Iakobwa [2024] KIHC 47; HCLA 2024-03696 (14 October 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 2024-03696

BETWEEN: BINATAAKE TIOTI

Appellant

AND: IOATA IAKOBWA

Respondent

Date of hearing: 9 August 2024

Date of Judgment: 14 October 2024

Appearances: Mr. Birimwaka Tekanene for the Appellant

Mrs. Kiata Ariera for the Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Abaiang Magistrate Court in case number Abaiang Misc App 1 /23 arising from Abalan 26/23 and 57/22. Such decision was delivered on 2 May 2024. The appeal concerns the transfer of the land Tabontebike to Iakobwa Tiiman.
   
2. In the case below, the Applicant, now the Appellant, instituted a claim against the Respondent that the registration of their father’s title (Iakobwa Tiiman) over the land Tabontebike belonging to Tiiman Kaewaua was made fraudulently in case number 31/72.

Appeal Grounds

3. Four grounds of appeal submitted as follows;
   
   1. The magistrates erred in law and in fact in failing to consider that the letter submitted in CN 75/55 was fraudulently made and that the person making it knew it was false and that it was intended that the court to whom it was made would act on it,
      
   2. The magistrates erred in law and in fact to consider the evidence submitted by the plaintiff/appellant that there is strong convincing evidence to support the fact that the baptism certificate was fraudulently made and that the person making it knew it was false and that it was intended that the court to whom it was made would act on it,
      
   100. The magistrates erred in law and in fact in considering the birth certificate to be legitimate despite the fact that it was filed contrary to section 19 of the Birth Death and Marriages Ordinance,
        
   4. The magistrates erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the convincing evidence provided in light of the principle set out in Bukaineti v Tekimwa [2007] KICA 17.
      

Submission and Analysis

4. The argument raised by the Appellant is that Tiiman’s letter dated 18 Feb 1972 for the transfer of land to Iakobwa, which was used in court, was fraudulent since Tiiman died before the letter was written. He died on May 10, 1968; therefore, he could not have written the letter. The Respondent argued that the date on the letter was not the date it was written; it referred to the date on which the letter was submitted in court in the case CN/31/72. This case was heard in 1972, as shown by the number 72, which usually refers to the year the case was heard.
   
5. We have reviewed the judgment on appeal, and it did not consider the argument regarding the letter. The magistrate court dismissed the fraud case based on the Respondent’s evidence of the birth and baptism certificate of Iakobwa, which stated that he was the son of Tiiman and Aana. There was no mention of Tiiman’s letter that Iakobwa brought to the court in CN 31/72 to show that Tiiman intended for his land Tabontebike to be transferred to him. This was the main argument of fraud raised by the Appellant in the court below. The magistrate court should show that it had considered this evidence and state whether it accepted it as a fraud.
   
6. The other argument concerns Iakobwa's birth and baptism certificates, which show that he was the son of Tiiman and Nei Aana. The Appellant questioned the authenticity of these two documents because, according to them, Iakobwa was not the son of Tiiman and Aana. The Appellant argued that the baptism certificate is not an official proof of birth details as it is only used for church records.
   
7. The Appellant further argued that the birth certificate was not filed per section 16 of the Birth, Death, and Marriages Ordinance, which requires the father's consent before registering an illegitimate child under the father. Therefore, the court should not accept the birth certificate. There was no legal proof that Tiiman married Aana, Iakobwa’s mother. In response, it was stated that section 19 is irrelevant as it deals with the registration of illegitimate children, but Iakobwa was not illegitimate. The death certificate of Tiiman did not show any issues of Tiiman, but the Respondent said that the purpose of the death certificate is to show the date on which the person died, not to show who his children are.
   
8. We believe the issues raised regarding the birth, baptism, and death certificates are irrelevant to the fraud claim. The arguments on three evidentiary documents tend to prove whether Iakobwa was the son of Tiiman. This was not the concern when the land was registered in his name in CN 31/72. However, we note why the parties made this argument; it will back up their reasoning as to why Iakobwa should or should not be given the land of Tiiman Kaewaua.
   
9. The last point concerns the argument that the principle of Bukaineti was not followed regarding the letter submitted. As stated above, the magistrate court did not consider the argument concerning the letter submitted by Iakobwa in the registration case of CN 31/72. We agree with this argument. The magistrate court should elaborate on its decision with respect to the principles set out in Bukaineti.
   

ORDER

10. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 4 and 7, the appeal is allowed.
    
11. The magistrate court's decision in Abaiang Misc App 1 /23 arising from Abalan 26/23 and 57/22 is set aside.
    
12. The case is remitted to the same magistrate court for rehearing following but not restricted to our observations.
    
13. Cost to the Appellant to be agreed or taxed.
    

THE HON. TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA

CHIEF JUSTICE

AMINA URIAM RETETA RIMON

LAND APPEAL MAGISTRATE LAND APPEAL MAGISTRATE