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

Kokoria v Taam [2025] KIHC 48; Land Review 02681 of 2025 (5 August 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT LAND REVIEW 2025-02681

BETWEEN: Kokoria & his family
Applicants

AND: Tonganibeia Taam mtmm & others

Respondents

Date of Hearing: 27 May 2025
Date of Judgment: 5 August 2025

Appearances: Ms Maere Kirata for the Applicants Mr Banuera Berina for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

BRIEF BACKGROUND

1. This is an application for a review of the eviction order dated February 7, 2025, issued against the applicants in miscellaneous application number 2024-03307 arising from case 2022-00338.
   
2. The land, Tematiang, was purported to be owned by the respondent, Tonganibeia Taam mtmm, which was claimed to be occupied by the applicants. The applicants believed that they were staying on their land, Manoku 746o, which was adjacent to both Teraoi Moy’s and Ruonamakin Kamaraia’s land.
   
3. A boundary determination in BD 117/16 was conducted between Teraoi Moy and Ruonamakin Kamaraia. The result established a boundary line between the lands of the two parties. The applicants were living on the land within the newly defined boundaries. An eviction case was filed against the applicants, and the case was granted. The applicants applied for a stay while awaiting the hearing of their review and appeal against BD 117/16. Their application for a stay was granted. While they continued residing on the plot, another eviction order was executed against them.
   
4. The second eviction order was issued by the respondent in this current case, Tonganibeia, Taam. The applicants argued that the order was invalid and had no effect. They filed for a review of this eviction order, raising the following grounds.
   

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW

5. i) The Applicants were not summoned or notified of the eviction case and the enforcement proceedings, thus breaching the principles of natural justice.
   

ii) The applicants only became aware of the eviction when the police approached them with other household members and informed them that they were also included in the eviction order, when in fact their names and the neighboring household were not listed in the eviction order. Thus, the court order is not enforceable against them.

iii) The eviction order is void against them as they are not parties to the case and are not bound by it.

SUBMISSION FOR THE APPLICANTS

6. Applicants claimed they are not living on the respondent's land but on the land they believe to be their own, Manoku 746o.
   
7. They had already been evicted by a different applicant, Teraoi Moy, who also claimed in another case that the applicants were residing on Temwatiang. As mentioned above, they have also requested a review of that case, BD 117/16. The outcome of their review will determine the rightful owner between them and Teraoi Moy, which will resolve this ongoing land dispute.
   
8. Nonetheless, they continued to occupy the land, awaiting their review hearing against BD 117/16, when the respondent, Tonganibeia Taam, carried out the current eviction order against them without their knowledge.
   
9. The applicants believed that the eviction order had no legal effect on them because they were not named in it. They also argued that they were not parties to that eviction case. They asserted that the eviction order should only apply to the parties involved or those specifically named to be evicted.

RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION

10. The respondents said that the applicants’ names were not stated in court order number 338/22. Perhaps they shouldn't be evicted from their current location, and maybe the applicants should consider questioning the police's actions to verify the meaning of the court order and settle the disputed issue.
    
11. In essence, the respondents agree that the court order does not affect the applicants. Paragraph 8 of the applicant’s affidavit states that they knew the order should not evict them because they are not named.
    
12. The order was made to evict people who came onto the land of Tonganibeia Taam. Kokoria, the applicant, was not named in the Order. Their application for review should be dismissed with costs because they were not affected by the court order.
    

FINDING

13. The issue raised in this application concerned the validity of the eviction order 338/22 against the applicants.
    
14. At the start of the hearing, the applicants' counsel provided a list of the names of those she represented. The respondents' counsel stated he was only prepared to proceed with the parties named in the application. We agree. The list given to this court was lengthy, containing 11 names, with Kokoria Kiari, the applicant, listed first. We believe it is safer not to accept this list but to stick to the parties initially identified in the application when it was filed. We might consider accepting this longer list if those names were mentioned in the supporting affidavit and the court order.
    
15. The applicants alleged that the order is not enforceable against them because their names were not stated in the court order. The respondents did not object to this point.
    
16. We have considered submissions for both parties. We accept the respondents’ argument that the order does not concern the applicants because they were not named in the court order.
    
17. The court order was issued to Teitirenga Kairaoi, his family, and others residing on the respondent’s land, Temwatiang in Ambo. This order targets explicitly those occupying the land, Temwatiang, which belongs to the respondent, Tonganibeia Taam, along with his brothers and sisters.
    
18. Whether the applicants reside on Manoku is not a matter of concern before this court.
    
19. We did not hear any submission indicating that the applicants should be included in the eviction order; therefore, we see no reason to find the eviction order defective.
    

OUTCOME

20. The application for review is not granted.
21. The eviction order in question is not interfered with and remains valid.
22. The applicants are to pay the cost of this proceeding to the respondents, to be agreed or taxed.

Order accordingly.

HON. TETIRO MAATE SEMILOTA MOANIBA

Chief Justice

ARIAN ARINTETAAKE TABAKITOA TEMOKOU

Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate