Tokataake v Rutio [2025] KIHC 116; Land Appeal 3 of 2016 (2 June 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
Land Appeal Jurisdiction
(South Tarawa)

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL NO: 3 of 2016

BETWEEN

WILLIE TOKATAAKE ____________________________________ Appellant

AND

KAEWANITI RUTIO _____________________________________ Respondent

Date of Hearing: 7 November 2024

Appearances: Mr. Banuera Berina for the Appellant

Ms. Eweata Maata for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against the decision of the single magistrate in case Abm 24/2013, which was issued on August 18, 2015. Case Abm 24/2013 pertains to the ownership of a piece of land located on Abemama called Anteuri. Among other points, the appeal focused on the fact that the matter determined in Abm 24/2013 had been decided in prior cases.
   
2. We set out the history of the matter.
   
   • (a) In 2000, in case number 3/2000 at Abemama, Bauro Tokataake granted Willie Tokataake (the appellant now) half of Manoku along with all other plots within the said land. It commences at the northern point from Taruaeaki to the south.
     
   • (b) In 2002, in case number 2/2002 (which is occasionally referred to as 3/2002), the aforementioned Bauro was brought to court by Teribwebwe Ieuoua mtmm (with siblings) seeking the return of land Anteuri to them. The court approved their application.
     
   • (c) In that same year, Willie Tokataake (Willie) initiated review proceedings concerning the decision in case number 2/2002. The High Court in HCLR 14/2002 issued the following remarks: The muddle seems to have been caused because the name Manoku is sometimes used to describe both the whole of an area owned by Bauro and only a part of that area. We are anxious not to rob the respondents of second opportunity to establish their title to the land Anteuri which is another part of the area Manoku. The Court set aside case 2/2002 and ordered a retrial to determine the ownership of Anteuri.
     
   • (d) In 2003, in case number CNTT 1/2003 and in compliance with HCLR 14/2002, Teribwebwe with her siblings initiated legal proceedings against Willie, once more, seeking the return of the land Anteuri, claiming fraud. Her worship recorded the following note: The court finds from the evidence that the land Anteuri is located at Taruaeaki but not at Manoku. The transfer of title to Willie for the land Anteuri was in accordance with (the) law.
     
   • (e) Dissatisfied with the ruling in CNTT 1/2003, which affirmed Willie as the owner of Anteuri, Teribwebwe with her siblings filed an appeal. The High Court reviewed this appeal and ultimately rejected it on 25/04/2006.
     
   • (f) Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, they subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal in Land Appeal 12/2006. The appeal was once more dismissed. The Court of Appeal highlighted the following significant points: the appellant had had the opportunity of raising fraud before the single magistrate in May 2003, had done so, but had not produced any credible evidence in support of the allegation.
     
   • (g) In 2013, in the case of Abm 24/13, Kaewaniti Rutio, one of Teribwebwe's brothers, initiated legal proceedings against Willie, claiming that the transfer of Anteuri to him was fraudulent. During the hearing, the single magistrate determined that there was indeed fraud involved in case 3/2000. His worship concluded that the appellant was registered solely on Manoku and not on Anteuri, as these are distinct parcels of land. Willie was aware that Anteuri was not included in Manoku and provided false information to facilitate his registration on it.
     
3. On appeal, Mr. Banuera, appearing for Willie, contended that the issue in case Abm 24/2013, which was the ownership of Anteuri obtained by fraud, is res judicata.
   
4. To succeed, res judicata must depend on either a cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel.^[1] The principles governing cause of action estoppel were summarized by LJ Diplock in Thoday v Thoday^[2]

“..... cause of action estoppel ..... prevents a party from asserting or denying as against the other party, the existence of a particular cause of action, the existence or nonexistence of which has been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation between the same parties".

5. The cause of action presented before the court in CNTT 1/2003 concerned the ownership of Anteuri, which was purportedly acquired through fraudulent means. The plaintiffs were Teribewebwe Ieuoua with her siblings and the defendants were Willie Tokataake and Don Tokataake. The court heard the matter extensively and ruled against the allegation of fraud and found that the ownership of Anteuri is vested with Willie. The plaintiffs contested this decision and appealed to the High Court. The High Court reaffirming Willie as the rightful owner of Anteuri and rejected the argument that such ownership was obtained by fraud. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs proceeded to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In Land Appeal 12 of 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. The primary issue considered by the Court was in relation to the allegation of fraud, but stated that it “found no credible evidence upon which a finding of fraud was led at the hearing” in CNTT 1/2003.
   
6. These are court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of determining whether the ownership of Anteuri by Willie has been obtained by fraud. They have come to a decision, which decision is now final after the Court of Appeal in Land Appeal 12 of 2006 dealt with the matter.
   
7. This same cause of action was again raised in case Abm 24/2013. The parties involved remain the same. Kaewaniti Rutio, who appeared in Abm 24/2013 as the plaintiff, was one of Teribewebwe Ieuoua's brothers, who was evidently one of the parties in CNTT 1/2003, subsequently in the High Court, and ultimately in the Court of Appeal in Land Appeal 12 of 2006.
   
8. This legal doctrine, cause of action estoppel, should preclude the matter from being re-litigated in Abm 24/2013 or in any subsequent cases between the same parties. The proceedings conducted therein does not only result in an abuse of process but also bring the administration of justice into disrepute.^[3] The case must be dismissed.
   
9. As for the issue estoppel, again in Thoday (supra), LJ Diplock said:

"If in litigation upon one cause of action any of such separate issues as to whether a particular condition has been fulfilled is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction ..... neither party can, in subsequent litigation between one another upon any cause of action which depends upon the fulfilment of the identical condition, assert that the condition was fulfilled if the Court has in the first litigation determined that it was not, or deny that it was fulfilled if the Court in the first litigation determined that it was"

10. As previously mentioned, the court in Abm 24/2013 determine the very same issues that were raised and dealt with in CNTT 1/2003 and the High Court on June 2, 2016, namely the registration of Willie on Anteuri, the location of Anteuri and the alleged fraud. The court in Abm 24/2013 cannot deal with these issues again as they have been dealt with in CNTT 1/2003 and in the High Court. It is estopped from relitigating these issues again. Again, this results in an abuse of process.
    
11. But, if the court in Abm 24/2013 rightly dealt with the matter, Mr Banuera submitted that there is no evidence to support the finding of fraud. Upon reviewing the minutes, we are of the opinion that his worship appeared to reach his conclusion on fraud rather swiftly. It appears that he was convinced that the registration of Willie in case 3/2000 was indeed fraudulent, as he was aware that Anteuri and Manoku are distinct parcels of land.
    
12. The Court of Appeal in Bukaineti^[4] outlined the elements of fraud. The person asserting the claim is required to demonstrate that the evidence or statement in question was a false representation of fact, that the person who made it was aware of its falsity, and that it was intended for the recipient, whether a person or a court, to rely on it. Furthermore, the person making the assertion must have recognized that the statement in question was dishonest and ethically improper, and it was made with the purpose of misleading.
    
13. It went on to say that:

“The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities, but because of the serious nature of an allegation of fraud, there must be strong, convincing evidence that the statement was made knowing it was false and with intent to deceive. Although that may be proved by circumstantial evidence, nevertheless the evidence must be compelling and allow of no other reasonable explanation. Thus, fraud is difficult to establish.”

14. We struggle to understand how his worship arrived at the conclusion of fraud. We agree with Mr Banuera that the evidence of Kaewaniti Rutio was not credible or compelling to support a finding of fraud as per the guidelines in Bukaineti (supra). We cannot see how fraud arose in case number 3/2000. Furthermore, case 2/2002 which his worship relied upon in its decision was annulled by the High Court in HCLR 14/2003. Most significantly, the Court of Appeal in Land Appeal 12/2006 rendered a decision regarding this issue. It said: the appellant had had the opportunity of raising fraud before the single magistrate in May 2003, had done so, but had not produced any credible evidence in support of the allegation.
    
15. We do note that the confusion emerged, as also noted in HCLR 14/2003, from the fact that Manoku is occasionally used to refer to both the entirety of an area owned by Bauro and merely a portion of that area. The High Court in HCLR 14/2003 had held the view that the land Anteuri constitutes another section of Manoku area. This was supposed to settle the confusion and have the matter rest, however, when the present respondent (with his siblings) reopened the case before the court in CNTT 1/2013, rather than simply complying with the High Court's directive, her worship proceeded to re-determine the location of Anteuri and decided that it was not located at Manoku but at Taruaeaki. This reopens again the location of Anteuri, which has been resolved in HCLR 14/2003, and thus the confusion. What her worship did in CNTT 1/2013 is simply over-ruling HCLA 14/2013; it does not have the power nor the jurisdiction. As the High Court in HCLR 14/2003 had held that Anteuri is located within the Manoku area, the magistrate’s court in CNTT 1/2013 should stand by this.^[5]
    
16. In light of the reasons stated above, the appeal is granted. To ensure justice, this Court will annul and dismiss case number Abm 24/2013. To prevent ongoing litigations regarding the same matter and to avoid further abuses of the court processes in the future, we hold and confirm that:
    • (a) the appellant, Willie Tokataake, is the owner of Anteuri 225a; and
    • (b) the transfer of ownership to him (Willie) was done in compliance with the law.

This should rest here and now.

(c) Cost is awarded to the appellant; to be taxed if not agreed.

Order accordingly.

Dated this 2 of June 2025.

	HON. AOMORO T. AMTEN JUDGE
TITAN TAOKAI Land Magistrate Appeal Panelist		RITETI MANINRAKA Land Magistrate Appeal Panelist

---

^[1] Attorney General, iro Republic of Kiribati v Baakoa [2013] KICA 6 (PacLII)
^[2] [1964] P 181
^[3] Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] A.C. 529
^[4] Bukaineti v Tekimwa [2007] KICA 7 (PacLII)
^[5] See the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in Duggan v. Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation 2020 ONCA 788 (CanLII)