IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

Misc. App 2025-01827
High Court Civil Case 2025-01822

Between:		Toaboo Bwauro for Issues of Rurunnang Moamoaba
			Applicants
						
AND:	Boibe Ntiua with siblings for Issues of Ntiua Tekita, Arawatau Kareua, Mauri Baiteke		
Respondents

Date of hearing:	24 July 2025
Date of judgment:	11 August 2025

Appearances:	Ms Taaira Timeon for Applicants
Mr Tabibiri Tentau for 1st Respondent
Ms Batitea Tekanito for 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Respondents

JUDGMENT

The Case

1.	This is an application to seek leave to extend time to apply for leave for certiorari order to have the decision of Betlan 599 of 2015 quashed because 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, Betlan 599/15, was decided on October 28, 2015. The applicants filed the above application on February 21, 2025, and supported it with Toaboo Bwauro’s affidavit. There was an almost ten-year delay in filing.

3.	The magistrate court in Betlan 599/15 approved the registration of the second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents on the land Teabanimate 592-u. The applicants also owned this plot of land but were not invited to the proceeding, which is why they filed this application.

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, Toaboo Bwauro, stated in his affidavit that he did not know about the decision until 2024, when his family decided to move onto the land for settlement. One week after establishing their settlement, the respondents arrived and drove them away from the land. The respondents claimed that the land belonged to them through their ancestors, Tabuateroro Tiotibea, Tabuateroro Eno, and Nei Nouo. 

6.	The applicants informed this Court that they should have been invited to the proceedings because they need to demonstrate that the second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents have no legal rights to the land, Teabanimate 592-u, since their ancestors, Tabuateroro Tiotibea, Tabuateroro Eno, and Nei Nouo, had no family connection to their ancestor, Tawanga Tangimate, who was the original owner of the land and had no children. 

7.	The respondents, on the other hand, stated through the affidavit of Tokamarewe Bakarewe that their rights were established in the 1990s in CN 96/99, which was reflected in the land register and their certificate of ownership. They are the children of Taonuea Tangimate and are named as the fifth respondents in this case. The second, third, and fourth respondents were children of Taonuea’s siblings, namely Taburateroro and Teiwaki Roua. The respondents, through Tokamarewe, also testified that a delay of ten years is significant, especially since the respondents have relied on the 2015 judgment as final and have built houses on the land.

8.	My understanding is that the applicants are co-owners of the land in dispute. They were not invited to the proceedings, which they believe they should have been invited to argue that the second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents have no legal right to the land and therefore should not be registered. Although the delay is substantial, it is reasonable, and this is not the only factor to consider. The respondents said they were properly registered on the land as descendants of the original landowner, Tawana Tangimate. The arguments of both parties must be properly considered at the hearing of the substantive application.

9.	Counsel for the first respondent indicated to this court that his client will abide by this court’s decision.

Outcome

10.	For the reasons stated above, the application for leave for extension of time is granted.

11.	The case is returned to the Pre-trial conference for the parties to fix the hearing date of the substantive application.

Order Accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice