IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 30 of 2023

BETWEEN:	Nanotaake Moutu, David Tio, Bureimoa Moutu for Issues of Tobora Tokoriri
					Appellants

AND:	Takabwebwe Teaoti for Issues of Takabwebwe Tokoriri, Takaua Tokoriri, Toakai Tokoriri
					Respondents

Date of Hearing:		     	4 February 2025
Date of Judgment:			6 March 2025

Appearances:		    Mr Tabibiri Tentau for the Appellants
                                                Ms TaoingTaoaba for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

A. The Case: Brief Facts

1.	Background

1.1.	This is an appeal against the decision of the Abaiang Magistrates Court in Abalan 23/2022. By way of background, the said Abalan 23/22 was the retrial of the case as ordered by the High Court in HCLR Case No: 9 of 2019, following the respondents’ application in which they claimed to have been denied the opportunity to express and prove their interest over the land in dispute, Teakirikaki 247u, in Taburao, Abaiang, in CN 27/18.  

1.2.	The matter before the magistrate court in Abalan 23/22 was about the registration of the appellants alongside the respondents over the land, Teakirikaki 247u. Parties are closely related as they are descendants of the original owner of the land, Rakai. The appellants are issues of Rakai’s daughter, Tobora Tekoriri. The respondents are issues of Rakai’s sons namely Takabwebwe, Takaua and Toakai.

1.3.	The appellants’ application was based on the decision of CN 63/60. The magistrate court in Abalan 23/22 refused the appellants’ application to be registered over the land, Teakirikaki 247u, alongside the respondents.

2.	The Appeal

2.1. Ground (Amended)

2.1.1.	More specifically, the appellants argue that the aforementioned Magistrates Court’s decision, Abalan 23/22, has erred in both law and fact by failing to consider the appellants’ interest in Teakirikaki 247u, following the decision of CN 63/60. The appellants also believe the decision is one-sided and not supported by evidence. 

2.2. Evidence in support of the Appeal

2.2.1.	To support their appeal, the appellants rely on the minutes of CN 63/60. According to CN 63/60, the original owner of Teakirikaki 247u was Rakai (Taukiei), the wife of Tokoriri. The minutes show that Rakai was deregistered from her lands, Teakirikaki 247u, Manoku 138e and Tekitantano 136m. Taeanie, the grandchild of Rakai, was registered after Rakai, along with his siblings and cousins, over the lands of Manoku and Teakirikaki. Tobora Tokoriri and her sister (daughters of Rakai and Tokoriri) were registered over the land Tekitantano. This information was ascertained from the appellant’s Counsel’s closing submission to the lower court, as no copy of the judgment of CN 63/60 was made available to this Court.

2.2.3.	Taeanie is the issue of Toakai Tokoriri (the son of Rakai and Tokoriri). The appellants, on the other hand, are issues of Tobora Tokoriri. One of Tobora’s brothers is Toakai, Taeanie's father. Tobora had three brothers, Takabwebwe, Tekoriri, and Toakai, from their mother, Rakai. From this relationship, the appellants' father or grandfather are cousins of the respondents’ grandfather, Taeanie, therefore, they should be registered over the land as per the CN 63/60 decision. 

2.2.2.	The appellants further submit that the decision of CN 63/60 had not been overturned; therefore, it remains valid.

2.2.3. Accordingly, the appellants submit that the decision in Abalan 23/22 be set aside and their registration over Teakirikaki 247u be allowed. 

3. Submission for the Respondents

3.1. Evidence against the Appeal

3.1.1.	The respondents oppose the appeal. They rely on the minutes of CN 56/66 and the evidence of Uakerita Kanoanie, which show that only the three sons of Rakai, Takabwebwe, Takaua, and Toakai, were registered over the land, Teakirikaki 247u. Their sisters, Tobora and the other, received the other land, Koota. Therefore, the appellants who are the issues of Tobora cannot be registered over Teakirikaki 247u. 

3.1.2.	Furthermore, the respondents point out that the exclusion of Tobora and issues from the land, Teakirikaki 274u, have not been questioned since 1966 until 2018 (i.e., more than 50 years after) when the Government leased the land, and landowners received the lease money. 

3.1.4.	In the circumstances, the respondents submit that the appeal be dismissed and the Magistrates Court’s decision in CN 23/22 be reaffirmed. 

4. The Court’s stance on the appeal

4.1.	Given the evidence from both parties, this Court is led to believe that the rightful owners of the land in dispute, Teakirikaki 274u, are the issues of the sons of Rakai, namely Takabwebwe, Takaua and Toakai, not Tobora and issues. 

4.1.2.	We agree with the magistrate court's decision that the ownership of Teakirikaki should remain with the issues of the sons of Rakai, Takabwebwe, Takaua and Toakai as previously ruled in CN 63/60. Our interpretation of the decision in CN 63/60 is that the appellants’ grandmother, Tobora, was given the land Tekitantan but not Teakirikaki. Her brothers, Takabwebwe, Takaua, and Toakai, received Teakirikaki and Manoku. It is quite clear from the decision of CN 63/60 that the term ‘cousins’ refers to Taeanie’s cousins, children of his father’s brothers, Takabwebwe and Takaua, rather than the children of their father’s sister, Tobora, since she was granted the other land, Tekitantan.

4.1.3.	We also consider the fact that in the minutes of CN 56/66, there was a statement by the parties, including Tobora herself, that she had already received a share which was the land, Tekitantan. It is important to note that CN 56/66 was about the registration over the extra two lands that Rakai received from an issueless family (te aba n iti). These two lands are Teking and Koota. The magistrate court's decision in CN 56/66 shows that Tobora was registered over Koota. The decision also gave the land Teakirikaki to Katangaua (brother of Taeanie) and siblings with issues of Takaua and Takabwebwe. This decision had the same effect as the decision in CN 63/60, so it confirmed the previous registration done in CN 63/60.

4.1.4.	In the final analysis, this Court, therefore, cannot be convinced that the decision of the Magistrates Court in CN 23/22 had been biased and not supported by evidence.

B. ORDER

5.1. For the above-mentioned reasons: 

5.1.1.	the appeal is not allowed; and

5.1.2.	the decision in case Abalan 23 of 2022 is reaffirmed accordingly.

5.1.3.	Cost to the respondents, to be taxed if not agreed.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

 TEAUAMA IOTEBA					RITETI MANINRAKA
 Land Appeal Magistrate				Land Appeal Magistrate