Kairirieta v Taunebo [2025] KIHC 75; Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2021 (10 November 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

LAND JURISDICTION

MISC. APP 3 OF 2021 arising from

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 38 of 2020

BETWEEN: Nei Erema Kairirieta

Applicant/Appellant

AND: Kn Kaitinang Taunebo

1^st Respondent

Areta Nabura for Tekimwa

2^nd Respondent

Kn Tekima Manoku

3^rd Respondent

Taramarawa Ingiraua

4^th Respondent

Date of Hearing: 9 September 2025
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2025

Appearances: Ms Batitea Tekanito for the Appellant
Ms Maitinnara for the 1^st Respondent

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application for an extension of time seeking leave to appeal out of time against the decision of BD 4/18 delivered on 8/6/2018.
   
2. The appeal is filed two years late. The reason for the delay was shown in the affidavit of Erema Kairirieta.
   

The law; Batee and Tiroi v Trustee for the Jehova’s Witness Church [2006] KICA 6

3. Reason for the delay

1. Appellant’s counsel submits that right after the judgment, her client informed the court clerk about her dissatisfaction with the court’s decision and paid a $10.00 appeal fee, as advised by the court clerk, which might be the standard rate in outer islands. The payment of the appeal fee and receipt were mentioned in Erema's affidavit at paragraph 3. The appellant later discovered, after consulting her lawyer, that the notice of appeal was not filed until May 2020.
   
2. In her rebuttal, the respondent stated that the appellant had not paid the $50.00 appeal fee, only a $10.00 fee for stay of execution in the High Court, which was also the applicable rate in the outer islands without exception. Therefore, in effect, no appeal has been properly filed.
   

100. The appellant’s counsel claimed that the appellant might have been given incorrect advice by the court clerk regarding the appeal fee, which she mistakenly believed to be $10.00.
     

4. Merit of the proposed appeal

1. The appellant raised evidential issues in that the magistrate made a decision that was not supported by evidence.
   

5. Prejudice against the respondent

1. The appellant states that granting an extension of time will not prejudice the respondent because the main issue concerns the boundary marks between the two properties.

Analysis and decision

6. We acknowledge that the appeal was filed on time, meaning on the same day the judgment was announced. The judgment was announced on June 8, 2018. The applicant/appellant paid the appeal fee to the court in Butaritari on that same day, as shown on the receipt. What is confusing in the applicant/appellant’s submission is that she believed she paid $10, even though the receipt clearly shows she paid $50.00. The receipt number matches the one in her affidavit, which is 281775.
   
7. Although the appeal papers were dated in 2020, we accept the appellant’s evidence that she filed and paid her appeal on the same day the decision was issued.
   
8. We also accept that the respondent will not be prejudiced because the issue only involves the boundary mark between their properties.
   

Outcome

9. For reasons stated above, the application for out-of-time is granted.
   
10. We will hear parties again on the substantive appeal.
    

Order accordingly

THE HON. TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

TEAUAMA IOTEBA TABAKITOA TEMOKOU
Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate