IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION

LAND APPEAL NO. 17 OF 1996

BETWEENT

AEUEA BETERO
Appellant

V

ANDBAUNANA TIBWERE
RAAUA TIBWERE
Respondents
Date of Hearing: 21 March 1997
Delivery of judgment: 25 March 1997

Mr T Teiwaki for the Appellant
Mr B Berina for the Respondents

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Gibbs V.P., Connolly and Ryan JJ.A)

This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court in relation to a determination of the boundary between lands described as Teai 641a (Betero) and Bononou 640i (Nei Baunana). In 1988 Nei Baunana sought boundary determination which was by measuring the length of Betero's land along the Ananau Causeway from the far boundary and the length of Nei Baunan’s land, along the causeway (C/N 36/88). The result was Betero 150 and N. Baunana 132. on appeal by Nei Baunana it emerged that she was not then the registered owner and Maxwell C.J dismissed the appeal without costs (HCLA 257/88). It was also declared that “the boundary erected by the magistrates was void”. This could only mean that the declaration was not binding. However, Betero accepted the findings in C/N 36/ 88 at that time.

In 1995 Nei Baunana, by then registered sought a rehearing (N/N24/95) with the assistance of a surveyor and the facts found in C/N36/88 the boundary at Ananau Causeway was again established and a boundary stone was erected. The judgment of the High Court in this case points out that C/N36/88 was never attacked on the basis that its findings were wrong. Betero had accepted the findings in 1988 for he resisted the appeal.

When case 24/95 came before the magistrates the parties were present at the site and Betero showed them slash marks on old coconut trees on the two lands. The coconut tree is in the middle of the two lands. The magistrates’ decision was consistent with the facts found in 1988. Betero had accepted them and N. Baunana’s side supported them before the High Court in 1996. It is true that the surveyor’s evidence may have been unsworn but no objection seems to have been taken to it. The magistrates conducted the proceedings rather informally but the parties were present and had the opportunity of putting their cases. Attention is drawn by the appellant’s counsel to the fact that the magistrates did not give reasons as contemplated by s.30 (c) of the Magistrates’ Court Ordinance but they were obvious to all concerned. The view of the High Court that that should be the end of the matter is a reasonable one and should not be disturbed. 

The appeal is dismissed.

Gibbs V.P
Vice President

Connolly J
Judge

Ryan JJ.A
Judge