IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
Civil Jurisdiction
(South Tarawa)

HIGH COURT CIVIL REVIEW NO: 4 of 2023

BETWEEN
TERUBETAAKE TABERE _______________________ Applicant

AND
WILSON TAMTON, TOKAIMOA TAMTON, 
TERURUON TAMTON as next of kin of 
TAMTON TABERE, ARINATA TABERE, 
EDMA TABERE, MOTINRAOI TABERE ________ Respondents

Date of Hearing:	 25 November 2024

Appearances:	Ms Taaira Timeon for the Applicant
Ms Eveata Maata for the Respondents

JUDGMENT
AMTEN, J. – This is a petition for Certiorari to examine the proceedings in case CN 30/14, following the leave granted on July 5, 2024.
	The involved parties are siblings, with the exception of the deceased Tamton Tabere, whose interests are represented by his heirs.  In the matter of CN 30/14, all of Tabere's heirs, except for the applicant and the respondent Tamton—who were represented by their own heirs—appeared before the magistrates' court in Abemama to seek the distribution of the land known as Tabontebike (referred to as 'the property') in accordance with their mutual agreement.  Tamon's interests are represented by his heirs, while the applicant is represented by her daughter, Kamaua.  In accordance with their agreement, each sister is entitled to 1 acre of the property, while their sole brother, Tamton, will receive 1.4 acres.  Tamton's portion will be situated on the lagoon side, whereas the sisters will possess the ocean side.  The court, as expected, endorsed and validated this mutually agreed-upon distribution.  
	Ms. Taaira, representing the applicant, argued that the applicant's daughter attended without proper legal authority, which prevented the applicant from expressing her concerns regarding the distribution.  She asserted that this constituted a violation of natural justice.  Furthermore, she contended that the distribution was not equitable.  She even argued that the proceedings were deemed irregular as the court failed to adhere to the regulations set forth by the Magistrates’ Courts Ordinance.  
	Ms. Eveata, representing the respondents, stated that the applicant bore the responsibility to substantiate her claims regarding the alleged inequality in distribution.  She contended that the applicant should refrain from lodging complaints, as her interests were duly considered.  Not only did her daughter represent her, but she also received an equal share alongside her sisters.  The distribution was executed only after mutual agreement among all parties, which, according to her, complies with section 20(a) of the Native Lands (Amendment) Act 2000.  Additionally, while the applicant was living on Fanning Island, her daughter was present in Abemama at the time of the said distribution. 
	After considering the various arguments presented, I must reject this application.  If it is indeed the case that the applicant was present on Fanning Island, the court has the authority to appoint an individual with relevant knowledge; the applicant's daughter was present there, and the applicant also has siblings residing on the island.  The applicant’s concern was not on the knowledge of her daughter in respect of the land in question but rather her participation.  
	In particular, the Lands Code provides that “(t)he estate of an intestate owner or of an owner whose will has been stopped will only be settled when his next-of-kin, or their representatives are present. If the next-of-kin can agree upon a distribution then this may be approved by the court…” .  The applicant was represented by her daughter, which, as stated in section 11 above, is sufficient; therefore, the court's initial distribution must be upheld.  
	As to the relative shares of the children of an owner, section 11(iii) provides “(i)n the distribution of an estate between the sons and daughters of an owner the shares of the eldest son shall exceed that of his brothers, and the share of sons shall exceed the shares of daughters. If there are no sons then the share of the eldest daughter will exceed that of her sisters.”   The fact that Tamton's share, as the sole brother, surpasses that of his sisters (including the applicant), fully adhered to this section.  This must also stand.
	In light of the aforementioned reasons, the petition for Certiorari is denied and is dismissed.  Costs to the respondents to be taxed if not agreed.

Dated this 22 of April 2025.
……………………………
HON. AOMORO T. AMTEN 
PUISNE JUDGE