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

Uriam v Uriam [2003] KIHC 251; Land Appeal 42 of 2001 (5 May 2003)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 42 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

KABUREREI URIAM, TEBAU URIAM, TEEM URIAM,
TIROI URIAM, TABURONGO URIAM
APPELLANTS

AND:

BOREREI URIAM
RESPONDENT

FOR THE APPELLANTS: MS JACQUILINE HUSTON
FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR BANUERA BERINA

DATE OF HEARING: 5 MAY 2003

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

This is an application by a number of persons who were not parties to the original case, to appeal out of time against a decision of the South Tarawa Magistrate's Court given on 9 February 1999. The Magistrate's Court heard and granted an ex parte application by the present respondent to be registered as owner of a piece of land. The present applicants are his brothers. They complain that they knew nothing of Borerei's application until he told them about it some time later. They complain that they should have been heard: that they have been prejudiced.

The applicants face several hurdles. The first is that they were not parties in the case. Ms Huston has prepared a most careful and lengthy argument in support of her submission that leave should be given to her clients. We appreciate the help she has thereby given us.

Mr Berina has met Ms Huston's submissions by referring us to two Court of Appeal judgments - Land Appeal 1/1993 Nei Ereataai Natau and Nei Makurita Teboutabu vs Betero Kaitangare (for Issues of Nel Rungea) which cites Land Appeal 3/1992 Arimitl Tebukei vs Mabubu Tararrlarawa and Tekateke Naua & Ors.

These decisions are clear. An appeal can be brought only by a party to proceedings against whom the decision was made. In the first of these, cases we notice that Mr Berina was himself unsuccessful in presenting an argument similar to Ms Huston's today. The two decisions are directly against the present applicants. We notice that in LA 1/1993 the Court distinguishes the decision in LA 3/1992 but declines to decide whether there is a remedy in a situation similar to the present one. The Court suggested the Maneaba Ni Maungatabu may wish to consider the matter. The Court did not feel able to make law and apparently, either after consideration or none, the Maneaba ni Maungatabu has not made any either. It would be bold indeed of us to do so now.

We have suggested to Ms Huston that her clients may consider taking fresh proceedings next time for review. These proceedings would, too, be out of time. There has been some suggestion of fraud. If Ms Huston were able to prove fraud by the present respondent then a court would probably be sympathetic to granting an application for leave to proceed. We emphasize, though, that we are not giving any undertaking: we cannot do so ahead of argument.

The application is refused.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
CHIEF JUSTICE

TEKAIE TENANORA
MAGISTRATE

BETERO KAITANGARE
MAGISTRATE