Rabunataai v Kirimaua [2025] KIHC 37; Land Review 01364 of 2025 (3 July 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

High Court Land Review No.2025-01364

Between Taareti Kirimaua Rabunataai

Applicant

And Kamatie Kirimaua, Kireua Kirimaua

Tekina KIrimaua, Itintarawa Kirimaua

Ueue Kirimaua, Ritebwa Kirimaua

Rubo Kirimaua

Respondents

Hearing Date: 15 June 2025

Judgment Date: 3 July 2025

Appearances: Ms Maitinnara for Appellant

Mr Tentau for the Respondents

__________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Background of the case

1. This is an application under section 81(1) of the Magistrates Court Ordinance for a review of the decision of the North Tarawa Magistrate Court in case number NTlan 17/24 dated 7 March 2024.
   
2. When the applicant was very young, his biological father passed away, and his uncle, Kirimaua Rabunataai, along with his wife, registered him as his son. This is confirmed by the death certificate of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai and the applicant’s birth certificate.
   
3. In the case under review, the respondents registered their names on their late father’s lands, Kirimaua Rabunataai. The applicant was not invited to the proceedings and was not registered among the respondents on the lands. This is why he took the respondents to court for a review of this decision.
   

Grounds for review

The applicants filed the following grounds for review;

1. The petitioner is registered as the son of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai. This is evidenced by the petitioner’s birth certificate and the death certificate of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai.
   
2. The Respondents are the issues of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai. The respondent’s mother, Eritabeta Kirimaua, has tried to rectify the birth certificate of the petitioner in the court so that the petitioner would not benefit from the estate of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai. This was done in Betlan 396/23, where the court dismissed the case.
   

100. The legal basis for the review is that the Respondents knew the petitioner was registered as one of the issues of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai but failed to invite him when they de-registered their late father Kirimaua Rabunataai in the case dated 7 March 2024. This is a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem (natural justice and fairness).
     

Submission for the Applicant

4. According to Kirimaua's death certificate and the applicant’s birth certificate, he was listed as the deceased’s son. Despite this, he was not notified when the respondents removed Kirimaua Rabunataai's name from his leased land in North Tarawa, even though the respondents should have known the applicant was an interested party.
   
5. Furthermore, in another case, Betlan 396/23, the respondent’s mother filed a case to remove the applicant’s name as the child of her late husband, Kirimaua Rabunataai, but the court rejected her application. However, the respondents went to the North Tarawa Lands Court to have the name of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai deregistered and to have their names registered, excluding the applicant. The North Tarawa magistrate court decision was in their favour, resulting in the exclusion of the applicant’s name from this registration. The applicant argued that the decision of the North Tarawa Magistrate’s Court violated the principles of natural justice by not giving him the opportunity to be heard as one of Kirimaua’s children concerning the late Kirimaua Rabunataai's estate.
   
6. The applicant requested that this court permit him to defend his rights as the son of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai. Due to the registration, he was deprived of his rights to the rents from their father’s lands that the government is leasing, since they have already collected the rents.
   

Submission for the Respondents

7. The respondents emphasized the rights of the natural child over those of the adopted child. They argued that the applicant is not the biological child of their father; therefore, he should not be entitled to any lands owned by him.
   
8. They also submitted that the applicant’s own father, who was the brother of their father, owned several lands as well, which entitles him to inherit these lands as the natural child.
   

The Court’s View.

9. We agree with the applicant and find that the decision of the North Tarawa Magistrates case in NTlan 17/24, dated 7 March 2024, erred in law by proceeding without summoning the applicant to have his say in the registration.
   
10. The applicant is registered as one of the children of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai. The respondents’ mother attempted to remove him as a child of Kirimaua Rabunataai in Betlan 396/23, but her effort was unsuccessful. The respondents should have known that the applicant should be part of the registration case when the respondents registered themselves over their late father’s lands.
    
11. We believe the points raised by the respondents are not relevant, as the applicant is currently legally recognized as the son of the late Kirimaua Rabunataai.
    
12. The breach of natural justice has occurred in the North Tarawa magistrate court decision of 7 March 2024. In our opinion, justice would be served if that decision is quashed and a new trial is ordered.
    

ORDERS

13. The review is allowed, and the decision in the North Tarawa case number NTlan 17 of 2024, dated 7 March 2024, is quashed with costs to the applicant, to be agreed upon by the parties or taxed.
    
14. The case is remitted back to the North Tarawa magistrate court for a retrial. All the parties involved in this review case must be invited to the proceeding.
    

Honourable Tetiro Semilota Maate Moanaiba

Chief Justice

Taibo Tebaobao Arian Arintetaake

Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate