IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

High Court Land Appeal 8 of 2022

Between:		ANTEREA MA RAONA			
Appellants							

AND:			TERAOI MOI	&  BARANTINA MOI						Respondents

Date of hearing:		29 April 2025
Date of judgment:		30 May 2025

Appearances:	Ms. Maere Kirata for the Appellants
			Ms. Batitea Tekanito for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

Introduction
1.	This is an appeal against the decision of the Single Magistrate in case number Bailan 499/21. In this case, the Respondent initiated proceedings to evict the Appellants from their land, Tematiang 747a/1, and relied on the boundary case of BD 117/16.  

2.	BD 117/16 is a boundary case between the Respondent’s land, Tematiang 747a/1, and Ruonamwakin’s land, Manoku 746i. The Appellant claims that their land, Manoku 746o, is located between Temwatiang 747a/1 and Manoku 746i, but they are unaware of its boundaries since no boundary determination has been conducted for their land since 1903. They also do not know who their neighboring landowners are. 

3.	The magistrate court in Bailan 499/21 granted the eviction against the appellant; therefore, this appeal follows.

Appeal Grounds (amended)

4.	There are two grounds filed in support of this appeal as follows;

a)	The Single Magistrate erred in law in upholding the eviction case without conducting or allowing the boundary determination to take place before initiating the eviction case to ascertain that the Appellants are settling within the land of the Respondent.

b)	The Single Magistrate erred in law in failing to take into account that the decision in case number BD 117/16 did not bind the Appellants in the said eviction case as native land decisions are decisions inter parties but not in rem.

Submission for Appellant

5.	Counsel for the appellants argued that the court relied on the boundary case of BD 117/16 involving the Respondents and one Ruonamwakin Kamaraia to evict the Appellants from their own land, Manoku 746o, without confirming through a boundary determination that the Appellants were residing on the Respondents' land. The magistrate court failed to do that.

6.	The Appellants’ case in Betlan 499/21 differs from most eviction cases, as most defendants subject to eviction are squatters. However, the Appellants are not squatters; they hold a registered title that remains valid in law.

7.	The appellant cited the case of Namwakei v Namakin [2020] KIHC 10; Miscellaneous Application 99 of 2019 (26 May 2020), where the court discussed this principle.  In that case, the applicant applied for a stay of enforcement of the eviction order against her and her family issued in Betlan 86/19. In CN 23/06, the respondent conducted a boundary determination of her land with the Director of Lands to ensure her land did not encroach onto land leased by the Government. In Betlan 603/17, the respondent applied for confirmation of her boundary, as fixed in CN 23/06. The magistrate court in Betlan 86/19 based its eviction decision on Betlan 603/17. The High Court granted the application for a stay order because the previous cases, CN 23/06 and Betlan 603/17, did not bind the respondent as he was not a party to those cases. The court accepted that the applicants have been living on the land for 15 years and should have been made a party to the boundary determination case initiated by the respondent.

Submission for the Respondent

8.	The Respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the grounds of appeal are misconceived in fact and law and should be dismissed. 

9.	The Respondent contended that their land, Temwatiang 747a/1, shares a boundary with Ruanamakin Kamaria’s land, Manoku 746i. A court of competent jurisdiction determined the boundary between Temwatiang 747a/1 and Manoku 746i in case BD 117/16 after hearing evidence.

10.	The Appellants unlawfully entered the Respondents' land, therefore, eviction proceedings were initiated, and the Magistrate Court rightly found that the Appellants had unlawfully occupied the Respondents’ land. The decision of that boundary determination case of BD 117/16 remains valid and binding, even to the appellant, as they entered the boundaries of the respondent’s land. The Appellant’s attempt to challenge the boundary is an abuse of process and amounts to a collateral attack on a final judgment.

11.	The Respondents argued that the situation in Namwakei v Namakin differs because the applicant in that case had established ownership of the adjacent land next to the respondent’s property. Additionally, they had lived on that land for 15 years, and the High Court noted that they were not made a party to the two cases that determined the respondent’s boundary. This was why the High Court granted a stay of execution against the eviction order.   

12.	The Respondent argued that the appellants should not occupy their land, Temwatiang without knowing the location and boundaries of their land, Manoku 467o. During the lower court proceedings, the appellants acknowledged to the magistrate that they were unaware of the boundaries of Manoku 467o because the boundaries had not been determined since 1903. The Respondent asserted that the appellants should first identify the location and boundaries of their property, Manoku 467o, before entering the Respondent’s land. According to the Respondent, unlawful entry is still considered unlawful, even if an individual is unaware of the boundary of their land.

Conclusion

13.	We agree with the Respondent's argument. They have established the boundaries of their land, Temwatiang in BD 117/16. This ruling remains in effect unless overturned. The case of Namwakei v Namakin is irrelevant to the appellants’ situation, as the respondent correctly stated that the applicant in that case had lived on the land for 15 years and had already established her ownership. This case would have applied to the appellants’ situation if they had demonstrated to this court that they lived on the disputed land prior to the boundary determination case of BD 117/16 but were not invited to its proceedings. None of this was presented to this court. The appellants own Manoku 467i but are uncertain about its precise boundaries. 

14.	We agree with the magistrate's court that the appellant must refrain from trespassing on the respondent's land, Temwatiang 747a/1, until it can be confirmed that this land is not Temwatiang 747a/1, but rather their own land, Manoku 467i. The respondents have already established that the disputed land is Temwatiang 747a/1 in BD 177/16. The appellant should vacate this disputed land and confirm the location and boundaries of Manoku 467o before accessing the disputed area. They may only enter it if the court supports their claim.

Orders

15.	In light of the above findings, the appeal is dismissed, and the magistrate court's decision in Betlan 499/21 remains valid.

16.	Cost is awarded to the Appellants, to be agreed or taxed.

THE HON. TEITIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

 
TITAN TAOKAI						RITETI MANINRAKA
 Land Appeal Magistrate					Land Appeal Magistrate