IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION
HELD AT ABAIANG
Land Appeal Case No. 2025-07544
Between:
Taom Bokatu mtmm 							Appellants
And: 
Baraniko Metutera 	
(as Deputy Mayor for Abaiang Island Council)			1st Respondent 
Kaue et al. 
(for issues of Nakeruru and Tanana)					2nd Respondents 
Bakoauea Tabaia et al. 
(for issues of Tabokai and Taam)					3rd Respondents
Counsel:	Titabu Tabane for the Appellants
		Ms. Taotere Korimara for the 2nd Respondents
		Ms. Taraia Tata for the 3rd Respondents
JUDGMENT
1. Introduction
1.	This appeal concerns the boundaries of Korokoro 300i in Tanimaiaki village, Abaiang Island.  The appellants challenge the Magistrates’ Court judgment of 4 March 2025 in case Aba BD 23/24, which refused to verify their claimed 71 “tengaa” width and redefined boundaries with neighbouring plots Korokoro 300e and Banea 301a.  
2.	The case underscores the duty of trial courts to verify customary measurements and to facilitate evidentiary completeness where parties are unrepresented.  That principle frames the grounds of appeal and guides this Court’s consideration of both statutory jurisdiction and customary land practices.
3.	The matter engages both statutory jurisdiction and customary land practices, requiring careful attention to fairness, evidentiary completeness, and the principle of finality in land adjudication.
2. Grounds of Appeal
4.	The appellants rely on four grounds, grouped thematically for clarity:
A. Measurement and Encroachment
1)	The Magistrates erred by refusing to measure the claimed 71 “tengaa” width of Korokoro 300i.
2)	The Magistrates wrongly concluded, without measurement, that applying the 71 “tengaa” would absorb neighbouring lands.
B. Prior Determinations and Evidentiary Fairness
3)	The Magistrates redefined boundaries despite oral testimony of prior determinations.
4)	The Magistrates failed to afford appellants an opportunity to tender records of prior determinations.
3. Legal Framework
5.	Section 23 and Schedule 3 of the Magistrates’ Court Ordinance (Cap. 52) empower Magistrates’ Courts to adjudicate land disputes in accordance with the Land Code or, where the Code is inapplicable, local customary law.  The Court must ensure procedural fairness and allow parties a reasonable opportunity to present relevant evidence.  
6.	In boundary disputes, clarity of measurement and respect for prior determinations are essential.  The principle of finality in land matters has been affirmed in many cases, which cautions against disturbing settled boundaries absent compelling justification.
7.	Where multiple grounds raise interrelated concerns, such as measurement and evidentiary access, particularly where litigants are unrepresented, the Court must ensure that each is considered distinctly while avoiding unnecessary duplication.  In land matters, this translates into site verification, clarification of customary units, and facilitation of record retrieval.
4. Submissions of the Parties
Appellants
8.	The appellants submit that:
•	Their land traditionally measures 71 "tengaa" in width, based on local custom and oral history.
•	The Magistrates erred by refusing to measure this width or clarify the unit of measurement.
•	The conclusion that such a measurement would encroach on neighbouring plots was speculative and unsupported.
•	Oral testimony indicated prior determinations, particularly from 2000, which the Magistrates failed to consider or allow time to retrieve.
•	The parties were unrepresented, and the refusal to adjourn or invite further evidence denied them a fair hearing.
1st Respondent
9.	The 1st respondent did not contest the appeal substantively but noted the importance of finalizing boundaries for public development, including the proposed Junior Secondary School.
2nd Respondents
10.	The 2nd respondents oppose the appeal, submitting that:
•	The Magistrates acted within jurisdiction and properly evaluated the evidence.
•	The 71 "tengaa" claim was vague, lacking defined start and end points, and would unjustly encroach on their land.
•	The northern boundary had not previously been determined, and no documentary evidence was produced to support the appellants’ claim.
•	The lower court’s findings were consistent with the principles in Iabeta v Moniara [2001] KIHC 46, which uphold trial court determinations where supported by credible evidence.
3rd Respondents
11.	The 3rd respondents submit that:
•	The southern boundary between themselves and the appellants was agreed and confirmed in the judgment.
•	Reopening the case risks disturbing settled boundaries and causing hardship, particularly given the 3rd respondent’s age and physical limitations.
•	The appellants failed to produce any documentary evidence of prior determinations despite ample time.
5. Analysis and Consideration
12.	The Court considers each ground of appeal in turn.
Ground 1: Refusal to Measure the 71 "tengaa" Width
13.	The appellants assert that the Magistrates erred in law and fact by refusing to measure the claimed 71 "tengaa" width of their land, Korokoro 300i.  They submit that this measurement reflects understanding of the land’s extent and was central to their claim.  The refusal to undertake the measurement, they argue, deprived them of a fair opportunity to substantiate their case and undermine the integrity of the boundary determination process.
14.	The 2nd respondents contend that the Magistrates did consider the proposed measurement and rejected it as unreasonable.  They argue that the appellants failed to define the unit of "tengaa", whether it referred to fathoms, arm-lengths, or steps, and did not specify the starting and ending points of the measurement.  In their view, the claim was vague and unworkable, and the Magistrates were correct to rely on physical indicators and the sketch plan presented at trial.
15.	The Court finds that the refusal to measure the claimed 71 "tengaa" width was procedurally problematic.  In land disputes, especially those involving customary units of measurement, it is incumbent upon the trial court to seek clarity through verification.  This principle has been affirmed in Temarewe v Tekautu [2017] KICA 1, where the Court emphasized the necessity of site inspection to ensure accuracy in boundary determinations, and in Iabeta v Moniara [2001] KIHC 46, which upheld trial court findings grounded in verified physical evidence.  Comparative authority also supports this approach: in Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93, the House of Lords cautioned against rigid reliance on assumption where factual verification was possible.
16.	The unit "tengaa" is not a standard metric and may vary in interpretation depending on local context.  Without clarification of its meaning and physical application, the Court cannot reasonably assess the validity of the appellants’ claim.
17.	Moreover, the appellants were unrepresented and relied on oral testimony and customary knowledge.  In such circumstances, the Magistrates had a duty to facilitate understanding by inviting explanation of the unit, conducting a site visit, or allowing time for further evidence.  The failure to do so reflects a rigid approach that disadvantaged the appellants and compromised the fairness of the proceedings.
18.	In my view, the 71 "tengaa" measurement was not merely a numerical assertion, it was a claim rooted in local land tradition and supported by indicators such as trees, houses, and historical transactions.  The Magistrates’ refusal to engage with this evidence through physical measurement or contextual inquiry prevented a full and fair evaluation of the appellants’ case.
19.	Importantly, refusing to measure a claimed boundary without first clarifying its basis risks substituting assumption for fact.  In boundary disputes, especially those involving overlapping claims, the consequences of such refusal are significant.  A court’s failure to verify a claimed measurement may result in the endorsement of an inaccurate boundary, which could later conflict with other determinations or land records.  This undermines the principle of finality and exposes parties to future litigation and administrative uncertainty.
20.	Accordingly, the Court finds that Ground 1 is made out.  The Magistrates erred by refusing to measure the claimed 71 "tengaa" width without first clarifying its meaning or verifying its application.  A rehearing is warranted to ensure that the appellants’ claim is properly assessed through physical inspection and evidentiary development.
21.	Having found that the refusal to measure compromised fairness, the Court now considers the related conclusion of encroachment, which flowed directly from that omission.  The appellants contend that the Magistrates erred in both law and fact by concluding, without undertaking any physical measurement, that applying the claimed 71 "tengaa" width would absorb neighbouring lands Korokoro 300e and Banea 301a.
Ground 2: Conclusion of Encroachment
22.	 The appellants contend that the Magistrates erred in both law and fact by concluding, without undertaking any physical measurement, that applying the claimed 71 "tengaa" width would absorb neighbouring lands Korokoro 300e and Banea 301a.  They argue that this conclusion was speculative, unsupported by verified evidence, and procedurally unfair.  In their submission, the southern boundary with the 3rd respondents was agreed and confirmed and could have served as a reliable starting point for measurement.  They further assert that the Magistrates failed to consider a sequential measurement approach that would have clarified the extent of each plot without prejudicing adjacent owners.
23.	The 2nd respondents maintain that the Magistrates did consider the appellants’ proposed measurement and rejected it as unreasonable.  They argue that the 71 "tengaa" claim lacked clarity, particularly in terms of its starting and ending points, and that the measurement would unjustly encroach on their land.  They rely on the sketch plan and physical indicators presented at trial, which supported the 23 "tengaa" boundary upheld by the Magistrates.
24.	The 3rd respondents confirm that the southern boundary was agreed and recorded in the judgment.  They oppose any reopening of that boundary, citing the principle of finality and the hardship that would result from disturbing settled land arrangements.
25.	The Court accepts that the southern boundary was settled and should not have been a source of concern.  However, the Magistrates’ conclusion that the 71 "tengaa" measurement would absorb neighbouring plots was reached without undertaking a site visit or verifying the measurement through physical inspection.  In land boundary disputes, particularly those involving customary units such as "tengaa", the Court must ensure that conclusions are grounded in observable fact, not assumption.  As Temarewe v Tekautu [2017] KICA 1 illustrates, courts must ground boundary findings in observable fact, not assumption.  Similarly, Iabeta v Moniara [2001] KIHC 46 affirms that trial court determinations are respected where supported by credible, verified evidence.
26.	Moreover, the appellants’ proposal to begin measurement from the agreed southern boundary and proceed northward was not unreasonable.  Had the Magistrates adopted this approach, they could have assessed the actual spatial relationship between the plots and determined whether the claimed width was feasible.  The failure to explore this method reflects a lack of procedural flexibility and a missed opportunity to resolve the dispute on a sound evidentiary basis.
27.	Accordingly, the Court finds that Ground 2 is made out.  The Magistrates’ conclusion regarding encroachment was premature and procedurally flawed, and the matter warrants rehearing with proper measurement and evidentiary scrutiny.
28.	The premature finding of encroachment also connects to the appellants’ contention that prior determinations were overlooked.  The Court therefore turns to Ground 3, which addresses the redefinition of boundaries despite oral testimony of earlier adjudication.  The appellants submit that the Magistrates erred in law and fact by proceeding to redefine the boundaries of Korokoro 300e, Korokoro 300i, and Banea 301a.
Ground 3: Redefinition of Boundaries Despite Prior Determinations
29.	The appellants submit that the Magistrates erred in law and fact by proceeding to redefine the boundaries of Korokoro 300e, Korokoro 300i, and Banea 301a, despite oral evidence indicating that prior boundary determinations had been made.  They rely on the testimony of their witness, Tebeau, who stated that a boundary determination occurred in 2000, at least for the southern portion of the land.  The appellants argue that the Magistrates failed to give proper weight to this testimony and did not afford them time or opportunity to retrieve supporting records, which may have been archived in Betio or at the National Archives.  As will be seen under Ground 4, this omission also connects to the appellants’ complaint that they were denied a reasonable opportunity to tender records of those determinations.
30.	The 2nd respondents deny that any prior determination existed for the northern boundary between Korokoro 300i and Korokoro 300e.  They point to the court minutes, which record Tebeau’s statement that only the southern boundary had been determined, and that the northern portion remained unresolved.  They argue that the Magistrates acted properly in proceeding with the determination, given the absence of documentary evidence and the need to clarify boundaries for public development.
31.	The 3rd respondents similarly contend that no valid or binding prior determinations were presented.  They emphasize that the appellants had ample time, both before and after the judgment, to produce such records, and that their failure to do so undermines the credibility of their claim.  They cite Temarewe v Tekautu [2017] KICA 1 to support the principle that settled boundaries should not be disturbed without compelling evidence, and that speculative references to prior cases cannot override the trial court’s discretion.
32.	The Court finds that the oral testimony referencing a 2000 determination was sufficiently specific to warrant further inquiry.  Tebeau’s statement indicated that a formal process had occurred, at least in part, and that records might exist to substantiate it.  In such circumstances, particularly where parties are unrepresented, the Magistrates ought to have exercised procedural flexibility by adjourning the matter or inviting the parties to retrieve relevant documentation.  The failure to do so reflects a rigid approach that disadvantaged the appellants and undermined the integrity of the fact-finding process.
33.	More fundamentally, the Court emphasizes that the existence of prior boundary determinations, whether partial or complete, has legal significance that cannot be overlooked.  Land boundaries, once judicially determined, are presumed to be final and binding unless lawfully set aside.  This principle of finality was affirmed in Temarewe v Tekautu [2017] KICA 1, cautioning against disturbing settled boundaries absent compelling justification, and reinforced in Iabeta v Moniara [2001] KIHC 46, which upheld determinations supported by credible evidence.
34.	Proceeding to redefine boundaries without first verifying whether they have already been adjudicated risks creating overlapping or conflicting determinations.  This not only undermines the legitimacy of the current process but also exposes parties to future litigation, administrative confusion, and potential injustice.
35.	In the context of customary land tenure, where boundaries are often defined by oral history, landmarks, and community memory, the preservation and recognition of prior determinations is especially critical.  Such determinations may reflect long-standing consensus or judicial findings that have shaped land use and expectations over time. Ignoring them without due diligence may destabilize settled arrangements and erode public confidence in the judicial process.
36.	Accordingly, the Court finds that Ground 3 is made out.  The Magistrates erred by failing to investigate the existence and relevance of prior determinations before proceeding to redefine boundaries.  This omission is complemented by the appellants’ further complaint—that they were denied a reasonable opportunity to tender records of those determinations.  The testimony about a 2000 boundary determination provided a concrete lead that warranted judicial follow‑up, and the failure to adjourn or invite retrieval of records compounded the evidentiary gap. 
37.	Taken together, Grounds 3 and 4 highlight the procedural dimension of fairness in land adjudication: prior determinations must be verified and parties afforded a genuine opportunity to produce supporting records before boundaries are re‑drawn.  A rehearing is therefore warranted to ensure proper evidentiary development and to preserve the integrity of any existing determinations.
Ground 4: Denial of Opportunity to Tender Prior Records
38.	The appellants argue that the Magistrates erred in law and fact by failing to afford them a reasonable opportunity to tender records of prior boundary determinations.  They submit that they were unrepresented and relied on oral testimony indicating that such records existed but were not immediately available.  They contend that the Magistrates should have adjourned the proceedings or otherwise facilitated the retrieval of relevant documents, particularly given the complexity of land boundary issues and the potential impact on their proprietary rights.
39.	The 2nd and 3rd respondents oppose this ground, asserting that the proceedings were fair and that the appellants had ample time to produce any relevant records.  They argue that the absence of legal representation does not excuse the failure to present evidence, and that no documentary material was ever submitted to substantiate the appellants’ claims.  They further submit that the appellants’ reliance on oral assertions, without follow-through, undermines the credibility of their position.
40.	This ground complements Ground 3, which addressed the substantive failure to consider prior determinations.  As explained under Ground 3, the Magistrates’ omission to inquire into the 2000 boundary determination compromised the integrity of the fact‑finding process.  Here, the focus is on procedural fairness, specifically, the denial of opportunity to retrieve and present relevant records.  Together, these grounds highlight the need for judicial flexibility in evidentiary matters.
41.	The Court acknowledges that parties bear the primary responsibility for presenting their case.  However, where litigants are unrepresented and rely on oral testimony indicating the existence of relevant records, the Court must exercise procedural flexibility.  This approach is consistent with Temarewe v Tekautu [2017] KICA 1, which underscored the need for fairness in evidentiary matters, and with Iabeta v Moniara [2001] KIHC 46, which recognized the legitimacy of trial court findings where parties were afforded a fair opportunity to present evidence.  The specific testimony about a 2000 boundary determination provided a concrete lead that warranted judicial follow‑up, and the failure to adjourn or invite retrieval of records compounded the evidentiary gap.
42.	In land matters, where historical determinations may be archived in remote locations and oral history often underpins boundary claims, fairness requires that parties be afforded a reasonable opportunity to retrieve and tender such evidence.  The Magistrates’ failure to adjourn or invite further evidence disadvantaged the appellants and compounded the evidentiary gap identified under Ground 3.
43.	The failure of the Magistrates to adjourn or invite further evidence disadvantaged the appellants and compromised the fairness of the proceedings.  The specific testimony about a 2000 boundary determination, and an indication that the relevant records might be held at the National Archives or Judiciary Headquarters, was not a vague or speculative assertion; it was a concrete lead that warranted judicial follow-up.
44.	Moreover, the importance of allowing parties to tender prior records cannot be overstated.  Earlier determinations may contain findings that are binding or persuasive and may clarify the historical context of disputed boundaries.  Ignoring such records risks duplicating adjudication, creating inconsistent outcomes, and undermining the legitimacy of the judicial process.  In land disputes, where boundaries affect not only individual ownership but also community stability and development planning (the proposed site for the Junior Secondary School), the Court has a duty to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered before finalizing its decision.
45.	Accordingly, the Court finds that Ground 4 is made out.  The Magistrates erred by failing to afford the appellants a reasonable opportunity to tender prior boundary determination records, and by not exercising procedural flexibility considering their unrepresented status.  A rehearing is warranted to ensure that all relevant evidence is properly considered.
6. Conclusion
46.	For the reasons set out, the appeal is allowed in part.
(a)	The judgment of the Abaiang Magistrates’ Court in Aba BD 23/24 is set aside insofar as it concerns the boundary between Korokoro 300i and Korokoro 300e.  The agreed southern boundary between Korokoro 300i and Banea 301a shall remain undisturbed.
(b)	The matter is remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Magistrates’ Court.
(c)	In conducting the rehearing, the Court shall: 
(i)	invite clarification of the unit and scope of the 71 “tengaa” measurement;
(ii)	undertake a site visit to verify the claimed boundary; and
(iii)	permit parties to tender any prior boundary determination records, consistent with the evidentiary concerns identified under Grounds 3 and 4.
(d)	Costs shall be determined at the rehearing.
Delivered this 19th December 2025.

HON. AOMORO T. AMTEN
Judge of the High Court
TABAKITOA TEMOKU
Land Magistrate Appeal Panelist		TAIBO TEBAOBAO
Land Magistrate Appeal Panelist