IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 2023—O2464

BETWEEN	ATUERU TAIRORO FOR ISSUES OF TEKANANA 
Applicant

AND					TIIMI KARARAUA
					Respondent

Date of Hearing:			1 SEPTEMBER 2025
Date of Judgment:			28 OCTOBER 2025 

Appearances:			Ms. Eweata Maata for the Applicants
					Mr. Titabu Tabane for the Respondent

JUDGMENT -EXTENSION OF TIME

The Case
1.	This is an application for leave for an extension of time to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the Land Commission's decision in CN 11/49.

2.	The land in dispute is Tetabuki 821t, which was once owned by Kauongo, who died issueless. The applicants argue that the land should have reverted to his siblings, Tekanana and Nataua, as next of kin, but it was registered only in Tiimi Kararaua’s name in CN 11/49 without the presence of Nei Tekakana’s issues. The government leases this land, and the rent is paid only to the respondents. The applicants are issues of Tekanana, and the respondents are issues of Nataua.

3.	The applicants believe that the registration of the respondent over this land was tainted with fraud because their elder, Tekanana, was never mentioned to the court. The decision also failed to comply with the ruling of CN 75/48, which held that the remaining lands of Kauongo would be distributed later among Kauongo's next of kin.

4.	The application was filed late; therefore, this court will consider the principles in the case below to decide whether to grant leave for being out of time.

Relevant law – Batee and Tiroi v Trustee for the Jehova’s Witness Church [2006] KICA 6
Delay and Justification
5.	More than 80 years have passed since the judgment in 1949 in CN 11/49. The issues of Tekanana were not residing on South Tarawa, so their elders were unaware of this case. The means of communication and transportation at that time were neither reliable nor stable. It was also difficult to obtain court minutes at that time. After 2011, when the law was changed to allow cancellation of registration on grounds of fraud, the applicant's family prepared their case, but they also faced financial issues in funding their private lawyer. These are the reasons for the delay in filing.
Strength of the case
6.	The applicants wish to be registered as co-owners of the land alongside the respondent since their elder, Tekanana, was also the next-of-kin of the original owner, Kauongo.

7.	The applicants argue that they were not summoned to the registration case in question, constituting a breach of natural justice. They also claim that the respondent’s registration was tainted with fraud because they did not mention Tekanana, who should also receive a share since she is the sibling of the issue-less owner, Kauongo.

8.	The problem with this claim is that there is no evidence to support the argument that they were not invited to the hearing. What we have is only a decision showing that the land in question, Tetabuki 821t, was registered under Tiimi Kararaua. 

9.	The respondents argue that they did not believe the applicants descended from Tekanana because they did not provide their family tree to establish a link to Tekanana. The minutes of CN 75/48 included a family tree showing that Tekanana had two children, one of whom was Koakoa, who also attended the distribution case in CN 75/48 and received shares. In CN 11/49, the remaining lands were registered under the other next of kin, one of whom was Tiim, the respondent’s ancestor or elder, because he did not receive any shares from the first distribution in CN 75/48.

Prejudice
10.	The applicants argue that the respondents would not be prejudiced because they do not reside on the leased land. However, they have been collecting rent from it.

Court’s View
11.	 I have considered the above arguments and agree with the respondent that the claim was based on a breach of natural justice, but it was difficult to determine whether the applicants’ elders were not summoned since no minutes were provided to this court. To make matters worse, the case was conducted 80 years ago, making it hard to access the court minutes to prove or disprove the claim. This relates to the question of whether the delay is reasonable.

12.	 Having considered the reasons for the long delay, I am not convinced by the explanations provided for why the applicants took 80 years to find this case. They said most of them lived outside Tarawa, but this should not prevent them from coming to South Tarawa to look for their minutes. Transportation and communication to and from the outer islands were not a problem. There was never a time when people stopped traveling to and from the outer islands to South Tarawa, even though transportation has continued to improve significantly. In my view, the applicants do not have a strong case for breach of natural justice.

13.	Furthermore, part of their claim is that the respondents’ registration was compromised by fraud. The principle set out in the case Bukaineti v. Tekimwa [2007] KICA 7; Land Appeal 05/2007 (20 July 2017), is relevant. The relevant part of this case is quoted below;

“The person making the allegation must prove that the evidence or statement challenged was a false statement of fact, that the person making it knew it was false and that it was intended that the person or court to whom it was made would act on it. The person making it must have known that the statement challenged was dishonest and morally wrong, and that it was made with intent to deceive.
The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities, but because of the serious nature of an allegation of fraud, there must be strong, convincing evidence that the statement was made knowing it was false and with intent to deceive. Although that may be proved by circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be compelling and allow no other reasonable explanation. Thus fraud is difficult to establish. Many of the cases we have seen in this jurisdiction where fraud is alleged fall far short of what is required to prove it.”

14.	To establish fraud in the case before this Court, according to the principle in Bukaineti, court minutes are essential as it is the only way to determine whether fraud occurred that led to the respondent's registration on the land. Without the relevant court minutes of CN 11/49, the applicant’s claim of fraud is without merit.

Outcome
15.	For the above reasons, the application for leave to allow the extension of time is denied.

16.	 Cost to the respondent, to be agreed or taxed.  

ORDER accordingly.

HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice