IN THE KIRIBATI COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

Civil Appeal 4 of 2006

BETWEEN

RUTI TIBUA
ERENOA BURAING
Appellants

AND

TAREMA TETABO
BABONITI BAKOA
TOKAREI TEKAAI
RERE TEKAAI
Respondents

Before:	 Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Fisher JA

Counsel: Fleur Hamilton for appellants
Banuera Berina for 1st, 2nd & 4th respondents
Botika Maitinnara for 3rd respondent

Date of Hearing: 26 July 2006
Date of Judgment: 26 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] This is an appeal against a High Court judgment in a boundary dispute. The record shows that at the hearing of the appeal only the appellants and the first and second respondents were represented. When the matter came on for hearing in this Court, that was again the case: the third and fourth respondents were not represented.

[2] After the hearing in this Court had commenced, counsel for the parties who were before the Court intimated that they might be able to reach a compromise, and so the matter was adjourned for that purpose.

[3] Counsel have now reached agreement, and have submitted a draft order for the Court’s approval. But yesterday the daughter of the third respondent consulted Ms Maitinnara, because she is concerned at the effect the consent order may have on her boundary. Ms Maitinnara was not of course in a position to do more than inform us of her client’s concern.

[4] It is however far too late for the third respondent to be heard. Had counsel not asked for time to consider the compromise, the appeal would have been heard by now without her. 

[5] The other parties are entitled to the order which they have agreed upon, and which is annexed hereto. We make an order accordingly.

Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Fisher JA