IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CIVIL REVIEW 2024-00110

BETWEEN:	TENOABUTI MELITIANA, TEMATANG MELITIANA, AXEL MELITIANA AND ISSUES OF MIRATE MELITIANA
					Applicant

AND:	TEKEKE TABUIA 
	1ST Respondent 

AND:	TEEMON TEWATANA 
TAMANA ITAAKA AND NIITI ITAAKA
	2ND Respondent

Date of hearing:			8 May 2025
Date of Judgment:			7 July 2025 
Appearance:				Ms. Taaira Timeon for the Applicant
Mr. Siose Fatali for the first Respondent 
No appearance for/by the second Respondent
					
J U D G M E N T

The Case
1.	This is an application for leave for an order of certiorari to bring before this court the decision of the BD 35/18 for the purpose of having it quashed. The application was filed late on December 22, 2023, but an extension of time was granted on May 1, 2025. At the hearing today, the second respondents were absent, despite having been served. 
 
2.	BD 35/18 concerns establishing the boundaries of the land between the first and second respondents, who share a common plot number of Tekarake 651-i/2a/1. The applicant owns the adjacent land on the Bonriki side, with the plot number Tekarake 651-e/2a. 

3.	The applicants were not invited to the proceedings of BD 35/18 and claimed that the decision resulted in a reduction of their land size, which prompted this review application to have it overturned on the grounds of a breach of natural justice.

Submission and Analysis
4.	The application is supported by an affidavit of one Tenoabuti Melitiana. She deposed that she had been living on the land for about 43 years since the 1980s. Their father registered them on the land in 1997 in case A180/97. 

5.	The applicant argues that when the first and second respondents carried out their boundary determination, they did not invite them to participate. Their land borders the respondents' land on the side toward Bonriki; therefore, they should have had a chance to be involved in the boundary proceedings. Since they were not included, the outcome of this boundary determination has nearly halved the size of their land, which constitutes a breach of natural justice.

6.	The applicants refer to the case of Tebanna v Tebanna High Court Land Appeal HCLA 4 OF 2019 (1 Dec 2021), which supports the requirement of natural justice in that a potential party must be given an opportunity to be heard before the decision is made. 

7.	The first respondent, through counsel, asserts that the case lacks merit because the boundary dispute involved the boundaries of the first and second respondents, Teemon Tebwatana. Both parties agreed on their boundaries, which the court confirmed. Teemon later sold her land to the other second respondent, Tamana Itaaka. 

8.	The first and second respondents owned a piece of land, Tekarake 651-i/2a/1, which was different from the applicants’ land, Tekarake 651e/2a, but it was adjacent to it. In BD 35/18, the first and second respondents sought to determine the boundaries between their plots, resulting in their land being divided in half. This boundary was determined by the magistrate court in BD 35/18. 

9.	Tekeke Tabuia, the second named respondent, prepared an affidavit in support of their argument against this certiorari application. He stated that they did not invite owners of the adjoining lands, both on the Bonriki and Betio sides, because they believed they were not affected by the boundary determination, as it did not change the adjoining boundaries on either side of their land, Tekarake 651-i/2a/1. 

10.	We do not fully understand the respondents' argument. If they need to divide their land horizontally to determine the half each owns, they cannot do so without knowing their boundaries on the Bonriki and Betio sides. This is because they first need to determine the total size of the land before dividing it in half. Therefore, the shared boundaries with neighboring lands are involved. 

11.	The applicant’s argument is valid if her land was truly reduced by half. This can only be confirmed through a court hearing, where the owners of the neighboring lands (the applicants for the Bonriki side) are allowed to participate.
Outcome
12.	In light of the reasons stated above, the application for leave to seek an order of certiorari to bring before this court the case of BD 35/18 for the purpose of it being quashed is granted.

13.	The decision of BD 35/18 is hereby quashed for breach of natural justice.

14.	The matter is remitted to the lower court for rehearing. All interested parties must be summoned.

15.	Costs to the applicant, to be taxed if not agreed.

 			THE HON. TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
CHIEF JUSTICE