Aroito v Kiaitoka [2024] KIHC 49; HCLA 68 of 2016 (29 October 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 68 of 2016

BETWEEN: Taoiti Aroito
Appellant

AND: Mareta Kiaitoka
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 8 October 2024
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2024

Appearances: Ms Batitea Tekanito for the Appellant
Ms Taoing Taoaba for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Background

1. This appeal challenges the Magistrates Court’s judgment in BD 94/14, delivered on 14 October 2016, which confirmed the boundaries established in CN 07/95.
   

Grounds of Appeal

2. There are five grounds of appeal, but at the hearing, grounds 2 and 3 were disregarded, and ground 5 was not discussed. Grounds 1 and 4 are listed below;
   

Ground 1- the magistrate erred in law and in fact in applying the earlier court decision of 14/95 in determining the boundary of the appellant’s land when the record lacks evidence to substantiate the court’s finding that the boundary fixed in 14/95 was the appellant’s land.

Ground 4: The magistrate erred in law and in fact when it failed to consider the appellant’s closing submission.
Submissions and Analysis

3. The Appellant's main argument is that the earlier court's decision in CN 14/95 did not bind both parties as they were not parties to that case. The Appellant, through Counsel, referred to Onorio v Takeieta [2016] KICA, which states that a person not a party to the case cannot be bound by the decision of that case.
   
4. The Appellants further argued that the lower court did not consider their closing submission because it was filed late. They argued that submission timelines should be strictly observed only if prejudice would be caused to the other party, and this has not been established. As a result, the Appellants submitted that their argument on the location of their boundary was not considered.
   
5. The Respondent, through Counsel, stated that the earlier court decision of CN 14/95 concerns the boundary of the same land in dispute, the Appellant’s land. In that 1995 proceeding, the case concerned previous landowners, but the subject matter also concerned the Appellant’s plot. Therefore, the court invited the Appellant when their boundary was pointed out, which was where the double coconut trees were located. The Appellant explained that they came onto the land first, and the Respondent came later.
   
6. The Respondent, through Counsel, submitted that the case authority used by the Appellant would be applicable had the subject matter been the same. The parties were different in the case at hand, but the subject matter, the Appellant’s land, was the same. We agree that the case Onorio v Takeieta is not applicable because the parties and subject matters were different.
   
7. We also note that the magistrate court accepted the Applicant’s (now Respondent) argument concerning her boundary, which was pointed out in CN 14/95. The magistrate court further stated, and we agree, that the decision of CN 14/95 had not been overturned, so it remains valid.
   
8. The second argument regarding the closing submission must also fail because the Respondent was right when they pointed out that the court had heard the Appellant’s evidence even if their closing submission was not considered. We agree; the proceeding’s minutes show the Appellant’s evidence regarding their boundary. The fact that the lower court accepted the Respondent’s position on their boundary means the Appellant’s evidence was not accepted.
   

ORDER

9. For the reasons mentioned above:
   
   • - the appeal is not allowed, and
     
   • - costs for the Respondent, to be agreed or taxed.
     

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

RETETA RIMON TITAN TOAKAI
Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate