.IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION

MISC. APP 2025-07432 ARISING FROM
HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL NO 2024-05351

BETWEEN:	                         OBERA TIARITE 
			              Applicant 

AND:		      	              TOBIRO METIETI & OTHERS REPRESENTED 
                                                BY BENATETA TIROBA FOR ISSUE OF TIROBA
                                                KABUNARE 
			               Respondents

Date of Hearing:		    	30 September 2025
Date of Judgment:			10 November 2025 		

Appearances:                          Ms Botika Maitinnara for Applicant 
                                                Ms Eweata Maata for Respondents 	     			

JUDGMENT

Background of the case

1.	This is an application against the respondents for the enforcement of the Court’s decision in case number High Court Land Appeal 2024-05351 dated May 30, 2025.  

2.	 For a brief background of this case, in High Court Land Appeal 2024-05351, the Court ordered that the respondents must vacate the applicant’s land Abairarang 738A/1 within 6 weeks. Since the respondents failed to vacate the land, the applicant is now applying to enforce this Court’s order. 

3.	In this application, the applicant, Obera Tiarite, stated in her affidavit that her application is for the enforcement of the Court’s Order dated May 30, 2025.

4.	She stated in paragraph 4 of her affidavit that he paid the Sheriff of the High Court to serve the Order on the respondents. In paragraph 5, the sheriff informed her that he did not serve the judgment on the respondents but did serve it on their lawyer. The respondents are still occupying her land to date. 

5.	The respondents, on the other hand, through Benateta Tirobwa, deposed that the High Court's decision was delivered on May 30, 2025, without their knowledge, as they were not served with the judgment. 

6.	Two weeks before this hearing, they were served with a notice for a pre-trial conference without documents. They went to see their lawyer, who asked if they had received a copy of the judgment. The lawyer also informed them that it might be a case of judgment enforcement. The respondents told their lawyer that they needed more time to prepare, especially for the legal fees, since most of them were unemployed and needed time to gather all their contributions. 

7.	Their lawyer is now prepared to draft their appeal and request to file the appeal out of time, as well as to stay the judgment while waiting for the outcome of the appeal. 

8.	 The respondents respectfully requested three months to submit all relevant documents to the Court, as they intend to appeal the High Court's decision and also sought a stay of execution. 

9.	The respondents request the Court’s discretion to grant them three months to prepare their appeal, file an out-of-time appeal, and stay the judgment in Case 2024-05351.

10.	However, counsel for the applicant argued that the appeal window is only six weeks. The respondents have not filed an appeal since May 2025, when the judgment was delivered. Since their lawyer was served with the judgment, the respondents should have knowledge of the Court’s decision. Therefore, counsel for the applicant requested that the respondents vacate the applicant’s land and wait for their appeal elsewhere. 

Court’s Analysis 

11.	The application before this Court seeks to enforce an order issued on May 30, 2025, in case number High Court Land Appeal 2024-05351.

12.	The applicant took all necessary steps and procedures to ensure that the respondents vacate her land, which was when she filed a notice of motion to enforce the judgment with the court. 

13.	On the other hand, the respondents are now requesting this Court’s discretion to be granted a three-month period to prepare and submit all necessary documents for their appeal to the Court of Appeal and to seek a stay of execution. 

14.	The respondents claimed that the delay on their part was mainly because they were unaware that the judgment was delivered against them on May 30, 2025. The judgment was served only on their lawyer.

15.	According to the affidavit of one of the respondents, namely Benateta Tirobwa, in paragraph 3 of her affidavit, she stated that two weeks before the hearing, they went to see their lawyer and that they learned the judgment had been delivered. That was probably in the beginning or mid-September 2025.

16.	The respondents are now requesting that this Court permit them to remain on the land for an additional three months to prepare and submit the necessary documentation.

17.	 This Court is hesitant to grant a three-month period to the respondents for the following reasons;

i)	The respondents have had sufficient time to submit the required documents since the day they learned from their lawyer that the judgment had been delivered. 

ii)	Regardless of the above, the judgment received by the lawyer has the same effect as if the parties were aware of it or had been served with it. As stated in paragraph 4 above, the sheriff served the judgment on their lawyer.

iii)	The respondents, if they intend to appeal or apply for a stay of execution, should have taken all necessary legal steps and procedures for their application to be heard and determined. To date, the Court's record shows that neither a stay of execution nor an appeal by the respondents has been filed with the Court; even if filed, it would still be unfair to the applicant, as the delay is not reasonable. 

iv)	Three months is too long. They were given six weeks to vacate the land. The judgment was delivered on May 30th, 2025, and the applicant did not file her enforcement application until four months later. Essentially, had the applicant not filed this enforcement action, the respondent would not have bothered to exercise its right to appeal and to stay enforcement of the case. This is unreasonable and unfair to the applicant.

18.	By weighing the two positions, as stated above, we do accept the applicant’s case. 

Conclusion

19.	For the reasons stated above, the application to enforce judgment is granted. 
20.	The respondent must vacate the land immediately.
21.	Cost is awarded to the applicant, to be agreed or taxed.

Order accordingly

                   

HON. TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

ARIAN ARINTETAAKE		                   TABAKITOA TEMOKOU
 Land Appeal Magistrate				Land Appeal Magistrate