Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Kiribati

Bureaua v Raimon [2024] KIHC 9; Civil Review 17 of 2019 (14 February 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Review 17 of 2019

J U D G M E N T

Introduction

1. Pursuant to Order 61 Rule 2 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, the applicants applied for a review of a decision of the magistrate court in case number Betlan 83/11 dated 19 January 2011 regarding the registration of the respondents after their father, Raimon Bureaua, on his land Banraeaba 758a/2.
   
2. The application was filed late, but the respondents conceded the application for an extension of time on 18 August 2023.
   

Submissions and Court Analysis

3. The first ground in support of the application for review is the breach of natural justice. The applicants claimed they should be invited to the hearing of Betlan 83/11 as they are co-owners of the said land based upon the decision of the High Court Land Appeal 57/87. They submitted that the statement in paragraph one, the third page of the judgment, shows that Raimon did not own the land alone. The statement says, “Raimon was registered on the land with his brothers and sisters; the land Magistrates should have summoned him and adjourned the case until he appears or until they have a good reason for him not appearing.”
   
4. On the other hand, the respondents argued that if you read the judgment further down, on the same page, the court states, “We quash the magistrates' decision and set aside the registration of Ntiua Tetinaniku on 7^th May 1985 as owner of the land Banraeaba 758a/2 and order that Raimon Bureaua’s name be restored in the register as owner of Banraeaba 758a/2.” They claimed this statement indicates that Raimon’s siblings were not registered owners of Banraeaba 758a/2. Through their Counsel, they also submitted an older case done in 1977 to show that Raimon got his title in 1977 in CN 11/77. In CN 11/77, Raimon Bureaua was registered next to Kauongo Kabure’s name over the land Banraeaba 758a/2.
   
5. High Court Land Appeal 57/87 was the appeal by one Tematang Enere on behalf of the other family members against Kaboriba Bureaua, Ananga Bureaua, and Atauea Bureaua for selling the land Banraeaba 758a/2 to one Ntiua Tetinaniku in CN 113/85 with a forged letter of authority by Raimon Bureaua. The appeal was granted, and the sale was set aside as Raimon Bureaua’s authority submitted in CN 113/85 was forged. The High Court further ordered that Raimon Bureaua’s name be restored in the register as owner of Banraeaba 758a/2.
   
6. The respondents argued that the applicants could not own the land because of a statement in the judgment of High Land Appeal 57/87. I agree. This statement alone does not guarantee or create ownership, but a certificate of ownership does. The judgment of Betlan 83/11 indicates that the Single Magistrate based his decision to register Raimon Bureaua’s two sons, Mikaere Raimon and Ioane Raimon, after him on the land Banraeaba 758a/2 after satisfying himself with the death certificate of Raimon Bureaua and the certificate of ownership of Raimon Bureaua.^[1]
   
7. Further, Betlan 83/11 was heard in 2011 after the High Court Land Appeal 57/87, which was done in 1987. This indicates that the certificate of ownership produced to the magistrate court in Betlan 83/11 was more recent evidence than whatever was produced for the 1987 case. I, therefore, agree with the respondent that the applicants do not own Banraeaba 758a/2 and have no reason to be invited to the proceedings of Betlan 83/11.
   

Conclusion

8. For the reasons stated above, the application for review is not granted.
   
9. Cost to the Respondents to be taxed if not agreed.
   

ORDER accordingly.

HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Acting Chief Justice

^[1] After the hearing in September 2023, I informed the Registrar to obtain a good copy of the judgment of Betlan 83/11 from the applicant’s Counsel. The Registrar and his staff have conveyed this request to Counsel. We received the same unclear copy from Counsel. I asked again for a better copy. The applicants or Counsel produced none. We are now in the middle of February. I could not wait any longer, so I tried my best to read the copy, hence the delay in delivering this judgment. This serves as a reminder to the Applicants and Counsels to ensure that the copies they filed with their cases are clear and of good quality.