IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 2024-02323

BETWEEN:	         TIENE TEBENEA
                                        KABOITI MIKA
                                        TABUATEI ETERA
                                        KIRIMA MATIKE
                                        TEMAATI TEBENEA
				   	Appellants

AND:		          	         TEMATANG MELETIANA
                                        MELETIANA BOB
Respondents
Date of Hearing:		27 July 2025
Date of Judgment:	19 August 2025
Appearances:		Ms. Botika Maitinnara for the Appellants                             				Ms. Taaira Timeon for the Respondents
JUDGMENT

BRIEF BACKGROUND
1.	This is an appeal against the Single Magistrate’s decision in case Betlan 356/23, which was delivered on June 3, 2024.
2.	The Single Magistrate found fraud proved as claimed, but went on further to make an order to the respondents for the payment of $4500.00 in fulfillment of the agreement of the parties’ fathers for the sale of the land, which was not the issue and claim before him.   
3.	The appellants agreed with the part that found the registration of the respondents on land Tekarake 651e to be fraudulently done in case A 80/97, but disagreed with the order that the respondents must pay the purchase price of the land to fulfill both parties’ fathers’ agreement. 
4.	Appended below are the appellant’s grounds of appeal.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL
5.	Ground One: That the Single Magistrate erred in fact and in law when he made an order for the respondents to fulfill the sale of land done in BA 109/88, when the case before him had nothing to do with the fulfillment of what was the matter in BA 109/88.
6.	Ground Two: That the Single Magistrate erred in law and in fact in finding that there was fraud committed by the respondents’ father in case EA 80/97 but failed to give his judgment on the claim of fraud.
7.	Grounds Three: The judgment of the Single Magistrate in ordering the respondents to pay $4500 to the appellants is a finding of the Single Magistrate personally which is not the claim before him.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION
8.	In Betlan 356/23, the appellants, the children of the late Tebenea, sued the respondents on a fraud claim regarding their registration on Tekarake 651e.
9.	The late Tebenea was a registered owner on Tekarake 651e with brothers and sisters.
10.	Both Tebenea and Meletiana appeared before the court in BA 109/88 to register Meletiana’s name on a portion of Tekarake 651e through a land sale agreement with the price of $4500.00.  According to the appellants, the magistrate court did not register Meletiana because Meletiana had no money at the time of the hearing.
11.	Meletiana again appeared in court in case A 80/97 on January 29, 1997, and had his children’s names registered on land Tekarake 651e. He knew he was not registered as the owner of this land because he had not completed the registration in BA 109/88. He did not produce a certificate of ownership to the court in A80/97 when his children’s registration was approved. He misled the court about his ownership. 
12.	In A180/97, co-owners on Tekarake, namely Taake Etau and Tenamaiti Kiiba, made a distribution on the said land without inviting Tebenea. The distribution did not affect the respondents’ portion, as shown in the sketch plan. No portion of Tebenea was stated in the distribution or the sketch plan.

RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION
13.	The respondent denied being registered by way of fraud on Tekarake, contending that they were legally registered in case A80/97.
14.	In cross-examination, Tiene Tebenea (appellant) stated the following facts: a) that she did not know if Meletiana had already given money to Tebenea outside court; b) Tebenea died in 2020 but made his own decision during his lifetime without consulting his children; c) Tebenea did not attempt to rectify his land dealings during his lifetime.
15.	The appellants have not proven their fraud case because the agreement between their father and Meletiana was a land purchase on Tekarake 651e in case BA 109/88. However, when Meletiana registered his children’s title in case A 80/97, the land was Tekarake 651-e/2/1, which was not Tebenea’s plot. 
16.	Meletiana’s plot was not disturbed by the distribution done in case A180/97. This case was between the other two co-owners, Taake Etau and Tenamaiti Kiiba, who also owned Tekarake 651e with Tebenea. The proceeding did not involve Tebenea nor the respondents. In that case, the sketch map produced for the court indicated and confirmed Meletiana’s plot on Tekarake 651e. 

FINDINGS
17.	After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and the minutes and decisions of the three relevant cases, BA 109/88, A80/97, and A180/97, we came up with a different view regarding the decision of Betlan 356/23, the case on appeal. We list our findings below;
a) BA 109/88, is the registration of the respondents’ father, Meletiana, on some part of the land, Tekareke 651-e, by the appellants’ father, Tebenea. The minutes show that both parties agreed to the registration with the purchase price of $4500. The magistrate court noted that money could not be counted since it was not available. 
b)	The appellants contend that the decision of the magistrate court in BA 109/88 is that the registration of Meletiana’s name was not granted because Meletiana had no money at that time. We do not accept this argument as the judgment did not reflect this point. Instead, the magistrate court noted that the money was unavailable, but this does not constitute a legal requirement for confirming the land sale. 
c)	A80/97 is about the registration of Meletiana’s children over the land Tekarake 651e/2/1. The magistrate court granted Meletiana’s application to register his children’s names after considering the land register that showed that Meletiana owned that land, Tekarake 651 e/2/1. 
d)	It was stated in the magistrate court judgment in Betlan 356/23 that the respondents’ father, Meletiana, knew when he went to court in A80/97 to register his children’s names over the land that he did not own that land because he knew he was required to make full payment of the land price as ordered by the magistrate court in BA 109/88. There was no proof of this allegation.
e)	As we stated above, the magistrate court in A80/97 allowed the registration of Meletiana’s children on the land because the court was satisfied that Meletiana owned the land after seeing the record from the Land Register. Therefore, we disagree that Meletiana did not own the land at the time he registered his children on the land. We also disagree that there was a court order for Meletiana to pay the land price; this was not stated in BA 109/88 minutes. Therefore, we do not accept the contention that there was fraud in A80/97.
f)	We also find that in case BA 109/88, the name and plot number of the land was Tekarake 651e. In A80/97, when Meletiana went to court to register his children’s names, the land plot was Tekarake 651e/2/1. In the other case, A180/97, it was about the distribution of land Tekarake 651e between the co-owners, Taake Etau and Tenamaiti, in the absence of Tebenea (appellants’ father). The court, in that case, approved the distribution between the two co-owners and mentioned that Meletiana and his children's ownership over their plot will not be affected by this distribution. This case, A180/97, was proceeded in April 1997, which was after the registration of Meletiana’s children on their father’s land, in case A80/97, which was dated January 1997. 
g)	The above finding shows that the plot number given to Meletiana, Tekarake 651e/2/1, was not assigned as a result of the distribution in A180/97 but from the registration case in BA 109/88. There were no other cases involving Meletiana and this piece of land after his registration in BA 109/88 until the case A80/97 emerged in 1997. 
Summary of Finding
18.	The judgment in BA 109/88 shows that the parties agreed to the registration of Meletiana’s name on Tekareke. The court noted that the money was not counted because it was not ready.
19.	The court decision in A 80/97 confirmed the title registration of Meletiana’s children on land Takarake 651e/2/1 on January 29, 1997, after being satisfied that Meletiana was the legal landowner according to the land register. 
20.	The alleged fraud claimed in A80/97 was false, as the registration Meletiana made for his children was lawful because he was already a registered landowner of the property when A80/97 was heard.
21.	A distribution or subdivision of Tekarake in A180/97 between the two co-owners of Tekarake 561e did not affect the ownership of Meletiana’s children, but the sketch map showed their plot on the ground.  This distribution was done after Meletiana’s children had been registered on their plot.    

0RDER  
22.	In respect of the above finding, the decision of the magistrate court in Betlan 356/23 must be quashed entirely. 
23.	Appeal is dismissed
24.	Parties to bear their own costs.

HON. TETIRO MAATE SEMILOTA MOANIBA
Chief Justice

…………………………...				………………………………...
Arian Arintetaake                                               Tabakitoa Temokou                                                        
Land Appeal Magistrate                              Land Appeal Magistrate