IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Case 112 of 2006

BETWEEN:

NEI BUANEANG TEKAEI
NEI TAOIA TEKAEI
Applicants

AND:

TEKAEI TIBAU
UEANEITA TEKAEI
ATAUEA TEKAEI
MOIMOTI TEKAEI
MARIA TEKITAA
Respondents

For the Applicants: Mr Karotu Tiba
For the 2nd & 4th Respondents: Sr Bernadette Eberi
For the 5th Respondent: Ms Botika Maitinnara

Date of Hearing: 2 May 2007

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

This is a very difficult matter: difficult to do justice to all involved.

The applicants and the respondents except Nei Maria are full brothers and sisters. The respondent Nei Maria is their elder half sister: her mother was first married to Burangke. Burangke was Nei Maria’s natural father. After Burangke’s death Nei Maria’s mother married Tekaei Tibau by whom she bore the applicants and the respondents except Nei Maria.

In 2000 (CN 406/00) Tekaei applied to the court to adopt Nei Maria. According to the minutes of the case Ueaneita, Atauea and Moimoti were present, said they were happy with the adoption. A letter was produced purportedly written and signed by Nei Buaneang agreeing. Why there was no mention of the second applicant, Nei Taoia, is not explained. It now appears from the affidavits of Nei Buaneang and Nei Maria and from what counsel have told me of their instructions, that the letter was neither written nor signed by Nei Buaneang: it was a forgery. Moreover Sister Bernadette says that her clients agreed to the application for Nei Maria’s adoption only out of respect for their father and for Nei Maria. All that being so there are grounds for quashing the adoption. On the other hand the adoption has now stood for six and a half years. It is only because the applicants and the respondents other than Nei Maria do not want Nei Maria to join in the inheritance of Tekaei’s property that this application has been made.

Adoption affects the status of a person. It is a much more serious thing to disturb the status of a person than it is to disturb, say, the ownership of a piece of land. Status should be disturbed only in the gravest circumstances, for the most compelling reasons and the longer it has been undisturbed the less likely it is to be disturbed. I cannot find either circumstances or reasons present in this case justifying disturbance, especially after so long a time as six and a half years.

The court has a discretion whether or not to grant the application. After anxious consideration I have decided that I should not grant it. Nei Maria’s adoption should stand.

The application is refused.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice