IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Case 1 of 2021

Between:		Timothy Teabike Ata and brothers and sisters
			Applicants
						
AND:		Boibe Tauti mtmm, Tinabora Tematake mtmm, Terenga 	Taunteang									Respondents

Date of hearing:	28 May 2025
Date of judgment:	31 July 2025

Appearances:	Ms Eweata Maata for the Plaintiff
Mr Titabu Tabane for the Respondent except Terenga
Ms Maere Kirata for Respondent Terenga Taunteang (served but not present)

JUDGMENT

The Case

1.	This is an application to seek leave for an extension of time and to seek leave to apply for a certiorari order to have the decision of the case A30/97 quashed for the reasons that the applicants have an interest in the land but were not invited to the proceeding and they have been unjustly affected by the decision.

2.	The case A30/97 was decided on January 9, 1997. The applicants filed the above application on February 5, 2021 and supported it with Timothy Teabike’s affidavit. 

3.	The magistrate court in A30/97 allowed the application that the land Aontena 969a be registered under the name of Ata Taam, his share as the eldest sibling. The other two lands, Entantarawa 697e and Tabuarorae 709m/1 were left to the issues of the other two siblings, Temataake Taam and Tauti Taam, to distribute. Parties in that case were Terenga Taunteang and Teriakai Tauti mtmm.

Submissions and Analysis

4.	The case, Batee v Trustees for Jehova’s Witness Church [2006] KICA 17; Land Appeal 5 of 2005 (26 July 2006) sets out the principles to consider for extension of time. The relevant paragraph is shown below; 
“16. As these and other authorities make clear, leave will not normally be granted unless the applicant shows (i) an acceptable explanation for the delay, and (ii) that in all the circumstances it would be fair and equitable to extend time. Significant questions in approaching the exercise of the discretion will be the magnitude of the delay, the reasons for it, any prejudice suffered in consequence, and the strength of the appellant’s case. In the end, however, there is an overriding requirement to do what is just.”
5.	The applicant, Timothy Teabike Ata, deposed in his affidavit that he was born and raised in Nauru. His father, Teabike, was the third child of Ata Taam. Ata Taam had ten children. Terenga Taunteang is the daughter of Tauteang, the second child of Ata Taam. She went to court with the other respondents to register their grandfather’s name on the land Aontena 969a while the other two lands, Etantarawa 697e and Tabuarorae 709m/1 were allocated to Ata Taam’s two brothers. The applicant deposed that he was only aware of this case, A30/97 when he visited Tarawa in 2020. He also mentioned that in 1984, he had previously visited Tarawa and stayed with his father’s family, but he said that at that time, the three lands were occupied by issues of the three brothers.

6.	The applicant also stated that if the decision of A30/97 is not overturned, they will experience hardship. However, he did not explain why they would face such hardship. I note that in the application, it was claimed that the applicants had been living on the disputed lands before case A30/97 was filed but were not summoned to the hearing. Nevertheless, this claim is not supported by evidence. Even if I were to consider it, which I do not, it does not sufficiently demonstrate what hardship the applicants would face. 

7.	The respondents, in opposing the application, argue that it has no merit because the descendant, Ata Taam, had already been allocated one of the three pieces of land. The case in question was decided in 1997, and it took the applicants 24 years to seek a review. Temataake Mwea deposed that the distribution made in A30/97 was fair. The only reason the applicants now oppose it is that their family is large and continually growing, and most of them are currently occupying all three parcels of land. Temataake stated there is no more land or space to distribute. 
8.	I have reviewed the above submissions and evidence and agree that the application should not be approved. The delay is significant, nearly 24 years. I do not accept the claim that the applicants only became aware of it in 2020. He also visited earlier in 1984 and stayed with the family. 

9.	Even if I consider the delay to be insignificant, it is not the only relevant factor. The applicant did not demonstrate how they would be prejudiced if the decision were granted. The strength of their case is another important factor in deciding this application.

10.	I have heard from both Counsels about the merits of the case. Although the applicants were not invited to the hearing of A30/97, the decision is fair because each brother received one parcel of land. The minutes of A30/97 show that the applicants’ aunty, Terenga Taunteang, went to court to have their grandfather, Ata Taam, registered over Antena 969a as his share as the firstborn. 

11.	The magistrate's court agreed that the Lands Code section 11(ii) states that the share of the eldest son must exceed that of his brothers and sisters. This indicates that the land the applicants’ grandfather received is larger than the other two, so their family benefits from this distribution. Other family members (from Ata) have been living on these lands without disputing this division. If it were true that their family is very large and that they are trying to justify occupying the other two lands by having A30/97 quashed after 24 years, it would be unfair to the respondents. I do not accept that the decision of A30/97 caused them hardship; this was not explained in Timothy’s affidavit.  

Outcome
12.	For the reasons stated above, the application for leave for extension of time is not granted.
13.	Likewise, the application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari to bring before this court the decision of A30/97 for the purpose of its being quashed is also not granted.
14.	In light of the above, the decision of A30/97 remains valid. Cost is awarded to the respondents, to be agreed or taxed.

Order Accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice