IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 63 OF 2015

Between	                       Tim Taretita 
                                       	 Appellant

And				 Biritari Timan
                                     	 Remota Taretita   
                                      	 Respondents

Date of hearing: 		5 August 2025
Date of judgment: 		19 August 2025

Appearances: 	Mr Banuera Berina for Appellant
                       	Ms Henty Grace Pine for Respondents

JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Background
1. This case is an appeal of the decision made by the Lands court in Arorae in CN 13/14 issued on September 14, 2014.
2. In an earlier land case, CN 12/11, the magistrate court granted Tim Taretita the right to be registered over Tim Taua’s land, specifically Tetabuki, because Tim Taretita cared for him until his death. The Magistrate’s Court approved the registration on the grounds that Tim Taua died issueless.
3. Later in 2014, in CN 13/14, the case on appeal, the Magistrate Lands Court cancelled the registration done in CN 12/11 because there was no will to establish the appellant as the successor of Tim Taua’s estate. Additionally, the appellant did not invite the respondents to the registration proceeding, and he must approach Tim Taua's family to request a reward for nursing Tim Taua.
4. Tim Taretita is unhappy with the cancellation of his name and has filed the following grounds for appeal against that decision.
Ground of Appeal
4. The appellant filed the following ground in support of his appeal;
The Lands Court erred in attempting to correct its own decision in case number 12/11 by removing the name of the appellant from the land Tetabuki in that the Lands Court has no power to correct its own decision.

Submission for the Appellant
5. Counsel for the appellant cited the ruling in Iererua v Kee [2004] KICA 13; Land appeal of 2003 (August 2004) to support their appeal grounds. That case asserts that a magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from or review decisions of another magistrate's court. Even a magistrate's court cannot overturn decisions made by another magistrate's court. 
6. Following the decision in the above case, the Land Magistrates Court at Arorae does not have the authority to review its previous decision or what has occurred in this case. The only proper legal remedy to challenge the Magistrates Court's decision is to apply to the High Court for judicial review or to file a fraud case in the original court.
7. The appellant's counsel further submitted that the annulment of the appellant’s registration by the magistrate court in CN 13/14 was not predicated on a case of fraud. It was not alleged that fraud was involved in CN 12/11, nor did the magistrates’ decision stem from an evaluation of the requisite elements to establish fraudulent conduct.

Submission Against the Appeal 
8. In case number 12/11, the appellant went to court alone to register his name over Tim Taua’s land, Tetabuki, without inviting the next of kin of the said Tim Taua. The respondent submitted that the Magistrate Court of Arorae did not err in CN 13/14 when reconsidering its earlier position in CN 12/11, as it found that its previous decision was entirely incorrect due to the absence of a formal testamentary will from Tim Taua. Furthermore, the appellant secretly registered his name over Tim Taua’s land after Tim Taua’s death without consulting Tim Taua’s family first to grant him a gift for nursing Tim Taua.
9. The respondent also submitted that the court could correct the error of its previous decision when the decision was tainted with fraud as per the principle in Bukaineti v. Tekimwa [KICA 7 Land Appeal 05 of 3007 (30 July 2007)].  In this case, the respondents argued that the appellant had lied to the court when he claimed that Tim Taua had given him his land by will when there was no will. Therefore, the registration was tainted with fraud.
10. In summary, the respondent’s main argument in defending the magistrate court decision in CN 13/14 is that the High Court should not only consider whether the magistrate court has jurisdiction to review its earlier decision but also evaluate the merit of the appeal. The respondent argued that the appellant did not have the legal right to the land because he is not the next of kin to Tim Taua, and Tim Taua did not leave a will granting him ownership of the land. 

The Court Findings
11. We conclude that the Magistrate Court made an error in law by revisiting its previous decision. We agree that the magistrate's authority to confirm the registration concluded when it issued its ruling on 27 April 2011 in CN 12/11.
12. We agree with the appellant counsel’s argument that the Magistrate court can only amend the parties' names if an error is identified, but it cannot overturn or modify the original court’s decision. Bauro v Teburabura [1996] KIHC 154; Land Appeal 91 of 1991 (11 April 1996).
13. We concur with the respondent’s counsel that challenging the prior Magistrate Court decision on the grounds of fraud is possible. However, there is a proper process for alleging fraud, which requires meeting strict elements to convince the court. This is clearly outlined in Bukaineti.
14. We observe that the proceedings in CN 13/14 did not concern the fraudulent registration. The magistrate court in CN 13/14 neither mentioned the fraud allegation nor discussed the elements required to establish a fraudulent registration under Bukaineti.   
15. We disagree with the respondent's view that the court should also consider whether the appellant has a legal claim to the land. The only relevant issue for this appeal is whether the magistrate court has the authority to review its own decision. The question of the appellant's legal right to the land could be an issue for another day.
Order 
16. Based on our findings above, we conclude that the magistrates' court decision in Arorae in CN 13/14 is invalid and should be overturned. 

17. Cost is awarded to the appellant to be taxed if not agreed. 

The Hon. Tetiro Semilota Maate Moaniba
Chief Justice

Taibo Tebaobao                                                                                Tabakitoa Temokou
Land Appeal Magistrate                                                                    Land Appeal Magistrate