IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

High Court Land Appeal 6 of 2023

Between:		Kaitau Tibwere,	
Bwabwai Teaoti				Appellants	
Kitabu Teaoti
Rerenga Katangaua
						
AND:			Terita Taibo					Respondent

Date of hearing:	4/03/2025
Date of judgment:	27/03/2025
 
Appearance:		Ms Taoing Taoaba for the Appellants
			Ms Elsie Karakaua for the Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Introduction

1.	This is an appeal against the decision of the Abaiang Magistrates Court in case number AbaBD 19/20. In this case, the appellants applied for a boundary determination between their lands and the respondent’s land. 

2.	During the proceedings, the Magistrates confirmed the boundaries laid out by the surveyor from the Lands Department.  The Court reflected the minutes, CN 48/09 and Abaland 80/18, and the Court accepted the boundaries. The appellant appealed the decision based on the grounds below.

Submissions and Analysis

Ground 1: The Court erred in law in confirming the Surveyor’s boundary without giving the appellant’s a right to cross examine the Lands Surveyor who gave evidence to court pointing out the survey marks.

3.	Sometime in September 2022, the case proceeded, and only the appellant’s Counsel was present. The surveyor was invited to point out the boundary marks following the decisions of the previous boundary determination cases, AbaBD 80/18 and CN 48/09. There were sketches that the surveyor followed from these prior cases. The appellants waited for their chance to cross-examine the surveyor. The proceeding was not continued after that, and the magistrate court delivered its decision. The Respondent submits that cross-examinations would not affect the boundary reflected in these minutes.

Ground Two:	The court erred in law in confirming the Surveyor’s mark as a boundary for the appellant’s and the respondent’s land when it was clear that the survey marks pointed out by the survey were in respect only of the lands leased by the Council.

4.	The appellants, through the affidavit of one Karora Rakuniti, believe the boundary marks shown in the two cases were boundaries of the lands leased by the Island Council and not the boundary of the lands in question. Their argument is that the boundary sketch from the previous cases were identified by the Island Council for the leased plots. The appellants wanted to confirm this from the land surveyor but were not given a chance. 

5.	The respondent submits that the magistrate court decision reflected the boundaries determined for the plots 247m owned by them and 247u owned by the appellants in the previous case, AbaBD 80/18. “One court cannot overrule a decision of another court of the same jurisdiction,” as stated in Tebenea vs Kaotan [2005] KIHC 9. The magistrate court in AbaBD 19/20 could not change this boundary as another court decided. The appellants could only appeal against the decision if they were unhappy.

6.	Considering the parties’ submissions, this Court is inclined to accept the respondent’s argument. The survey marks pointed out by the surveyor are records of prior court decisions in 2018 and 2020; therefore, the magistrate court rightly stated that they could not change those boundaries fixed by another magistrate court.  We agree that what they would have expressed to the magistrate court below, had they been given an opportunity, would not change the outcome since the magistrate court lacks the jurisdiction to overturn the decision of another magistrate court. Their appropriate recourse is to challenge the decisions in those cases, AbaBD 80/18 and CN 48/09.
Order

7.	In light of the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed. 

8.	The respondent is awarded cost, to be agreed or taxed.

THE HON. TEITIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

 
TITAN TAOKAI							RITETI MANINRAKA
Land Appeal Magistrate						Land Appeal Magistrate