THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 5 OF 2019

BETWEEN: 			MEERI TOMINIKO AND TIBWAN TEMWANG
                         		APPELLANTS

AND				TABERANNANNG TEMWANG      
         	RESPONDENT

DATE OF HEARING		16 SEPTEMBER 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT 	15 OCTOBER 2025

APPEARANCES		Mr Banuera Berina for the Appellant
				Ms Marewenimakin Babera for the Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Introduction 
1.	This is an appeal against the decision of the Single Magistrate in case number Betlan 66 of 2018. The case involves the registration of the title over the estate of Temwang Tiban. In a previous case, Betlan 37 of 2016, the magistrate court also addressed the registration of title for the same estate. In that case, the court ruled that Meeri Tominiko, guardian of Tiban Temwang—biological son of landowner Temwang Tiban—should be registered as a trustee of the estate for Tiban Temwang. 

2.	In Betlan 66 of 2018, the Single Magistrate registered Taberannang Temwang, the adopted son, as a co-owner of the lands belonging to Temwang Tiban, alongside Tiban Temwang. In the magistrate court decision, the Single Magistrate held -

a)	that the defendant, now respondents, were unaware of the adoption made by Temwang Tiban, which caused them to exclude Taberannang Tiban.
b)	that the exclusion was a result of an innocent mistake committed in Betlan 37/16. 
c)	Given that Taberannang Tiban was legally adopted by Temwang Tiban, making him one of the beneficiaries, it was decided that Taberannang Tiban should be registered as a co-owner alongside Meeri Tominiko, trustee for Tiban Temwang. 

3.	That decision to register Taberannang as an additional owner by the court in Betlan 66/18 is now on appeal before this court. There is only one ground of appeal, as will be discussed and analysed below.

GROUND OF APPEAL AND COURT ANALYSIS
The Single Magistrate erred in law in finding he had the jurisdiction to vary the decision of the court with the same jurisdiction, in that, in law, he has no such powers.

4.	At the outset, we must remind ourselves that this appeal concerns whether a decision of a court has been varied or altered by a court of the same jurisdiction. Specifically, whether a decision in Betlan 37/16 has been varied by Betlan 66/18. The law states that a court cannot vary the decision of a court within the same jurisdiction. The case authority supporting this law is Iererua v Kee [2004] KICA 13; Land Appeal 06 of 2003 (23 August 2004). The proper way to vary a decision is through a judicial review or an appeal to a higher court.
  
5.	In response to the appeal, the respondent argued that Betlan 66/18 did not seek to vary or modify the decision of the court in Betlan 37/16 but aimed to add to it. As supporting authorities, two case references were provided—namely, the case of Bauro v Teburabura [1996] KIHC 154; Land Appeal  91 of 1991 (11 April 1996) and the case of Mangoniti v Mangoniti [2005] KICA 15; Land Appeal 07 of 2004 (8 August 2005).

6.	In Bauro v Teburabura, the magistrate court addressed a mistaken identity and corrected the names of the landowners mentioned in the previous magistrate court's decision. The case was appealed to the High Court, which stated that correcting an identity does not increase the number of owners. However, if the correction results in more owners or trustees, that would constitute a variation. In Betlan 37/16, the magistrate court decided to register the landowner (Meeri Tominiko as trustee for Tiban Temwang) over the estate of Temwang Tiban. In Betlan 66/18, the magistrate court decided to add another landowner (Taberannang Temwang) to the same estate. The decision in Bauro v Teburabura did not alter the number of landowners. Therefore, there is no variation.

7.	The Mangoniti v Mangoniti case reached the Court of Appeal (CoA). This case involves interpreting the phrase “Takoriri with her brothers and sisters,” specifically whether it includes half-brothers and half-sisters of Takoriri. The Lands courts or the Single Magistrates have decided that “Takoriri with her brothers and sisters” are to be registered on the lands of Mangoniti Tenanoa. The CoA’s interpretation of “Takoriri’s brothers and sisters” means to include half-brothers and half-sisters. This interpretation does not affect the number of owners or trustees. “Takoriri’s brothers and sisters” refers to both half-brothers and half-sisters. There is no variance.

8.	This court is of the view that a decision in Betlan 37/16 has been varied by a decision in Betlan 66/18 when it decided to add another landowner.

Conclusion
9.	For reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The magistrate court decision in Betlan 66 of 2018 is set aside with costs awarded to the appellant, to be agreed upon or taxed.

ORDER accordingly.

HON. TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice of the High Court

  TAIBO TEBAOBAO  					TABAKITOA TEMOKOU
Land Appeal Magistrate				Land Appeal Magistrate