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

Robwati v Robwati [2025] KIHC 71; Miscellaneous Application 00224 of 2028 (28 October 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION

MISC. APP 2024-00224 from
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 4 of 2022

BETWEEN TEITIKAI ROBWATI MTMM

Applicant

AND TEORAE ROBWATI
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 4 SEPTEMBER 2025
Date of Judgment: 28 OCTOBER 2025

Appearances: Ms. Taoing Taoaba for the Applicants
Ms. Taaira Timeon for the Respondent

JUDGMENT -EXTENSION OF TIME

The Case

1. This is an application to seek leave to allow the application out of time for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the magistrate court in CN 36/17. The affidavit of Tooua Teitikai supports the application.
   
2. In this case, CN 36/17, the respondent went to court in Onotoa to register himself over their father’s lands, Buraitan 143-17 and Buraitan 143-18. None of his siblings were invited to the proceedings. The lands in question are leased by the government, so the respondent receives all the rents himself. The applicant, Teitikai Robwati, filed this case on his own behalf and for his brothers and sisters who were not invited to the court proceeding, seeking a writ of certiorari to review the respondent’s registration and have it quashed for breach of natural justice. His application was late, hence this petition, which is based on the following reasons;
   

Relevant law – Batee and Tiroi v Trustee for the Jehova’s Witness Church [2006] KICA 6

Delay and Justification

3. In 2019, the applicant filed a case against the respondent to resolve the issue with the land rents, and that was when he became aware of the respondent’s registration. He sought help to file this case, which was ultimately filed in 2021.
   

Strength of the case

4. The applicant asserts he has a strong case against the respondent because the respondent’s registration was completed without his siblings, who share the same interest in the two lands.
   
5. The respondent’s only response is that the registration was done in accordance with their father’s decision or will; unfortunately, there is no will.
   

Prejudice

6. No submission has been made on this issue.
   

Court’s View

7. I have considered the above arguments and agree that there is merit in this case. It is necessary to properly hear the parties on the legal issue of breach of natural justice, since the registration was completed without the participation of the other interested parties, the applicants, who are siblings of the respondent.
   

Outcome

8. For the reasons mentioned above, the request for leave for an extension of time is granted.
   
9. The court will hear from the parties again regarding the substantive certiorari application.
   

ORDER accordingly.

HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice